Last updated on 10 October 2016

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Merluccius paradoxus, m. capensis

SPECIES NAME(s)

Cape hakes

The stock assessment and catch data combine both deep-water hake (Merluccius paradoxus) and shallow-water hake (M. capensis) species. Catches of the two species are of the same magnitude, but the shallow-water hake resource in Namibia is assumed to be much larger. The relation/degree of separation of these stocks to neighboring South African stocks is as yet unclear (Japp et al. 2012; Paterson and Kainge 2014; MFMR 2014b), but research is underway to better understand the stock structure of both M. paradoxus and M. capensis (BCC 2014).


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • Namibia is one of the few fishing nations that has 100% observer coverage of their fishing fleet (these observers function primarily as compliance officers).
  • The new management plan, in place for the period of 2014-2018, includes strategies to recover the stock to MSY levels, mitigate impacts on the ecosystem and improve monitoring and data collection (MFMR 2014a, 2014b).
  • A Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) pre-assessment has been completed and entering full assessment is under debate.
  • A project (‘ECOFISH’), coordinated by the Benguela Current Commission, is currently underway and, among other outputs, aims to improve the stock assessment used in the management of hake (BCC 2012).
Weaknesses
  • Stock assessment is still performed for Merluccius paradoxus and M. capensis combined.
  • There is some uncertainty about the actual fishing mortality as well as underreporting, high grading and discards and the non-segregation of shallow and deep water species.
  • Although biomass is deemed to have increased in recent years, the combined biomass of the two hake stocks is still estimated to remain around the 1990 biomass and at one third of MSY levels (Kirchner et al., 2012).
  • TACs have generally been set well above the level recommended by scientists.
  • Over-capacity and lack of transparency in the quota allocation scheme are still regarded as problematic in this fishery.
  • The Namibian hake fishing industry has been hard hit by poor catch rates and a high proportion of juvenile fish in landings.
  • There is bycatch of devil anglerfish (monk) which is considered “Near Threatened”.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

< 6

Managers Compliance:

< 6

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

3.7

Future Health:

6.4


RECOMMENDATIONS

CATCHERS & REGULATORS

1. Scientific bodies should develop and make publicly available separate assessments for deep-water and shallow-water hake stocks and identify individual stocks within species.
2. The new management plan should be made publicly available, together with scientific advice on sustainable catches.
3. Managers should set a total allowable catch (TAC) according to scientific advice.

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN

1. Start a fishery improvement project to address sustainability issues in this fishery. For advice on starting a FIP, see SFP’s Seafood Industry Guide to FIPs at http://www.sustainablefish.org/publications/2014/04/30/the-seafood-industry-guide-to-fips.
2. Contact the Namibian Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources and request that they commission separate assessments for deep-water and shallow-water hake stocks, set total allowable catches within scientific recommendations, and publish the new fishery management plan.


FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

  • Namibian hake trawl and longline fishery:

    MSC Full Assessment

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
Namibian coast Namibia Namibia Bottom trawls
Longlines

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 6 August 2014

Strengths
  • Namibia is one of the few fishing nations that has 100% observer coverage of their fishing fleet (these observers function primarily as compliance officers).
  • The new management plan, in place for the period of 2014-2018, includes strategies to recover the stock to MSY levels, mitigate impacts on the ecosystem and improve monitoring and data collection (MFMR 2014a, 2014b).
  • A Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) pre-assessment has been completed and entering full assessment is under debate.
  • A project (‘ECOFISH’), coordinated by the Benguela Current Commission, is currently underway and, among other outputs, aims to improve the stock assessment used in the management of hake (BCC 2012).
Weaknesses
  • Stock assessment is still performed for Merluccius paradoxus and M. capensis combined.
  • There is some uncertainty about the actual fishing mortality as well as underreporting, high grading and discards and the non-segregation of shallow and deep water species.
  • Although biomass is deemed to have increased in recent years, the combined biomass of the two hake stocks is still estimated to remain around the 1990 biomass and at one third of MSY levels (Kirchner et al., 2012).
  • TACs have generally been set well above the level recommended by scientists.
  • Over-capacity and lack of transparency in the quota allocation scheme are still regarded as problematic in this fishery.
  • The Namibian hake fishing industry has been hard hit by poor catch rates and a high proportion of juvenile fish in landings.
  • There is bycatch of devil anglerfish (monk) which is considered “Near Threatened”.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 28 June 2016

Improvement Recommendations to Catchers & Regulators

1. Scientific bodies should develop and make publicly available separate assessments for deep-water and shallow-water hake stocks and identify individual stocks within species.
2. The new management plan should be made publicly available, together with scientific advice on sustainable catches.
3. Managers should set a total allowable catch (TAC) according to scientific advice.

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain

1. Start a fishery improvement project to address sustainability issues in this fishery. For advice on starting a FIP, see SFP’s Seafood Industry Guide to FIPs at http://www.sustainablefish.org/publications/2014/04/30/the-seafood-industry-guide-to-fips.
2. Contact the Namibian Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources and request that they commission separate assessments for deep-water and shallow-water hake stocks, set total allowable catches within scientific recommendations, and publish the new fishery management plan.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 26 January 2015

The most recent assessment used a Age-Structured Production Model (ASPM). The model used integrates available current and historic data on: catches, catch at age and commercial and survey CPUE to estimate the state of the stock (Kirchner et al. 2012), but does not use catch data from the longline fishery, which generally account for less than 8% of total catches (MFMR 2014b).

Demersal trawl Summer surveys are conducted annually by the Ministry of Fisheries to obtain biomass data. Assessments are also apparently conducted annually but results are not regularly made public. Currently, assessments are still performed for Merluccius paradoxus and M. capensis combined. However, there is an clear intention in the recently implemented management plan to move towards disaggregated assessment and management of the two hake species (MFMR 2014b). This will require, nonetheless, the regular presence of skilled observers on board all vessels to assist in species identification. The relation of these stocks to neighboring South African stocks is as yet unclear MFMR 2014b). The most recently available genetics data was discussed in a workshop on the subject, held in November 2014. According to the workshop report, for M. paradoxus there are "two 2-stock hypotheses (differing in the area of overlap of the two stocks), and a single stock hypothesis". For M. capensis there are currently five hypotheses: "four 2-stock hypotheses (again differing in terms of the areas of overlap between the two stocks)", and the initial 3-stock hypothesis. Discussions on the stock structure will continue; the development of transboundary hake stock assessments is also being investigated (BCC 2014).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 6 August 2014

Although the recently implemented management plan anticipates future stock assessments separated by species (MFMR 2014b), scientists’ recommendations are still based on a combined stock assessment for Merluccius paradoxus and M. capensis (Kirchner et al. 2012; Paterson and Kainge 2014). 

Specific recommended catch levels from 2012 onwards could not be located on official documents. According to non-official reports, scientists have recommended a TAC of 130,000 t to the Advisory council, for the 2012/13 fishing season (The Namibian 2012). Projections conducted in the latest available stock assessment (Kirchner  et al. 2012) suggest that, although the stock has been increasing from the low levels in the early 2000s, for a faster growth of the stock TACs would have to decrease to about 100 thousand tonnes.

Reference Points

Last updated on 06 Aug 2014

One of the main goals of the new management plan for this fishery is the recovery of the hake stocks to the MSY level (MFMR 2014b). No specific fishing mortality reference points are known, but exploitation status is evaluated, nonetheless, in terms of catch against the replacement yield. Catches below the replacement yield indicate “sustainable exploitation” (Kirchner et al. 2012). Recently, it is has been defined that only 80% of the replacement yield is to be left for fishing, as an adaptive measure to rebuild the stock (Kirchner et al. 2012; MFMR 2014b). In terms of biomass, the estimated 1990 biomass levels is the indicator that has been used to assess status of the stock; alternative biomass reference points / indicators are planned to be defined (MFMR 2014b).


The most recently estimated stock depletion and biomass re to 1990 levels, and MSY reference points are below (Kirchner et al. 2012; base case model):

  • Stock depletion in terms of spawning biomass in 2012 = (Bsp2012/Ksp) = 0.14.  
  • Total biomass in 2012 relative to 1990 levels (indicator that has been used to assess status of the stock) = 1.05
Reference Points(thousand t) 
SSB05,976= Ksp (pre-exploitation spawning biomass)
SSBMSY2,610 
MSY280 
CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 6 August 2014

According to most recent publicly available stock assessment (2012), the stock is estimated to be at or very close to the depleted stock levels inherited at independence in 1990, and at one third of MSY levels (Kirchner et al. 2012). The two species are still assessed jointly, but the shallow-water hake biomass (M. capensis) is estimated to be much larger than the deep-water hake (M. paradoxus). According to the 2013 summer surveys, the total biomass of shallow-water hake was estimated at about 1.25 million tonnes, while deep-water hake biomass was estimated at 145,000 tons. However, most of the shallow-water hake was estimated to consist of fish below 35 cm (i.e., non-fishable biomass) (Davies et al. 2015). 

Recent catches have been around the replacement yield (Kirchner et al. 2012), suggesting that not much fish is left to allow stock to rebuild. The current depleted condition of the Sardine (Sardinops sagax), a key prey species for hake, is also likely to be affecting the recovery of the Namibian hake stock (Kirchner and Leiman 2014).
 

Trends

Last updated on 06 Aug 2014

The total annual catch from the late 1960s to the late 1970s was for most years in excess of 500 thousand tonnes, peaking in 1972 at 820 thousand tonnes. Hake catches rapidly declined in the late 1970s and through the 1980s catches were only half of what they were in the 1970s, with the tonnage being maintained at that level as a result of a progressively higher percentage of the catch being juveniles. As a result, Namibian stocks were depleted to very low levels prior to Independence in 1990. At independence, measures were introduced to attempt to rebuild the stocks and annual catches were reduced considerably and have since averaged 148,000 tonnes (Kirchner et al. 2012).

In recent years, biomass has been showing a slow but steady increase, although it is still estimated to remain around 1990 levels. Recent projections suggest that the hake stocks continue increasing (Davies et al. 2015), but not expected to rebuild to MSY levels in the near future at current catch levels (c. 150 thousand tonnes) (Kirchner et al. 2012).

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 6 August 2014

The management of the hake fishery is predicated on a Maximum Sustainable Yield approach (MFMR 2011; Kirchner et al. 2012). Current harvest control measures include TAC’s and Individual Quotas (IQs), quota fees, closed areas to trawling, a closed season (October), minimum landing size (36 cm) and minimum mesh sizes (e.g., ≥ 110 mm codend mesh size for bottom trawl) (Japp et al. 2012; Kirchner and Leiman 2014;  MFMR 2014b). Bycatch limits and bycatch fees are also used to discourage bycatch of other species in the hake fishery (e.g., kinglip, monkfish) and discarding of these or other species is prohibited (MFMR 2007b, 2014b). 

A new management plan was developed for the period 2014-2018 (MFMR 2014a, 2014b), and effectively put in force since 1 November 2014 (NFI 2014), the start of the new fishing season (the fishing season was previously from May and end in April of the subsequent year). The three main goals of the new management plan are: (1) the recovery (to MSY levels) and long-term sustainability of the hake resource; (2) the reduction of impacts on the ecosystem to the minimal possible; and (3) a stable business environment aiming to promote economic efficiency MFMR 2014b). For objective 1 specifically, the current strategy is to set TACs at 80% of the previous 5-years average of replacement yield (leaving the 20% to rebuild the stock). TAC changes are capped, however, by a 10% rule (i.e. increase/decrease must not exceed 10%). In the meantime, new strategies are being analyzed, in order to foster the recovery of stock beyond 1990 baseline (MFMR 2014b).

Despite the recent changes in the management system, TACs have generally been set well above the recommended (Kirchner et al. 2012; Paterson et al. 2013). In 2012/2013, the TAC was set at a 170,000 t (MFMR 2012b), 30% above what was recommended by scientists to the Advisory council (130,000 t) (The Namibian 2012; Seafish 2013). For 2013/2014, the set TAC for hake was reduced to 140,000 t, but then increased again in 2014/15 to 210,000 tons (period of 18 months, from May 2014 to September 2015) (NFI undated); but the scientific recommendations for these latest TACs could not be found. The current over-capacity and lack of transparency in the quota allocation scheme are regarded as other problems in this fishery (Kirchner and Leiman 2014). 

Recovery Plans

Last updated on 06 Aug 2014

A management plan (MP) was developed for the first time for 2011-2014, but no evidence it was ever implemented. In 2014 a new management plan was implemented and formally put in force for the period 2014-18. One of the main goals of the MP the recovery of the fishery to MSY levels (MFMR 2014b). The current strategy is to set precautionary TACs (more details in Managers Decisions section) and reduce effort; however, over-capacity is still regarded as a problem, and TACs have been generally set above recommended levels (Paterson et al. 2013; Kirchner and Leiman 2014). According to the most recent assessment available, if catches are kept around present levels (c. 150 thousand t) the stock is not expected to recover to MSY levels in the near future (Kirchner et al. 2012).

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 6 August 2014

Compliance with the set TACs had been quite consistently high, although in general catches have exceeded the recommended by scientists. In 2011/2012, the reported catches of 154 thousand t were 14% below the set TAC (180,000 t), but above the scientific recommendation (145,000 t) (Paterson et al. 2013). 

Namibia has only two ports from which vessels operate (Walvis Bay in central Namibia and Lüderitz in the south). A number of enforcement and control measures are in place, including: inspectors at landing ports, sea and air patrols, vessel monitoring system, and onboard observers (MFMR 2007a, 2007b, 2014b). Namibia is one of the few fishing nations that has 100% observer coverage of their fishing fleet (these observers function primarily as compliance officers, unlike in South Africa where observers are scientific data collectors). A National Plan of Action to deter, prevent and eliminate IUU fishing was developed in 2007 (MFMR 2007a), and the recently implemented hake management also includes a number of specific enforcement measures (MFMR 2014b). There are no reports of IUU fishing, but there are concerns about the quality of observer reports. A vessel monitoring system (VMS) is in place in the hake fleet (Russell 2009), but still not fully operational (MFMR 2014b).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 6 August 2014

A number of species of protected and endangered seabirds, marine mammals, sharks and sea turtles can be found where the Namibian hake fishery takes place, in the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) region (Davies et al. 2015). The Namibian fishery in particular has incidental catches of several species of marine mammals (dolphins and seal), fish, sharks and seabirds (MFMR 2014b).  Seal mortality occurs through drowning in trawl nets but is less likely for longlines (Russell 2009). Namibia however permits the sustainable harvesting of seals and less interaction is reported between seals and fishers than in South Africa. Cape fur seal population levels are not of concern globally but hunting in Namibia has led to low pup production (Hofmeyr & Gales, 2008). Further research to better understand the impact of the hake fishery in the seal populations and measures to mitigate these impacts are planned to be implemented in the near future (MFMR 2014b).

For seabirds specifically, Namibian fisheries (in particular the longline fleets) may be impacting at least 13 species of albatross and petrels, plus Cape gannet Morus capensis (MFMR 2014b), classified as “Vulnerable” by IUCN and whose population is in decreasing trend (BirdLife International 2012; Davies et al. 2015). Anderson et al. (2011) estimated an annual bycatch of c. 19,190 petrels and 606 albatross in the Namibia hake fisheries. A more recent study has estimated the seabird bycatch mortality in the Namibian demersal trawl fishery at around 8,088 seabirds per year, 5,010 of which are albatrosses. The same study recommended the implementation of regulations requiring the use bird-scaring lines in these fisheries in order to reduce seabird bycatch (BirdLife International, 2013). Issues relating to bird mortality on longlines are currently being addressed through a BCLME project (Birdlife); a National Plan of Action (NPOA) on mitigation of longline effects has also been developed (and is awaiting approval); further research in seabird bycatch is still needed (Russell 2009; MFMR 2011; BirdLife International 2013). 

Several species of elasmobranchs are also captured as bycatch, including three shark species and three skate species endemic to the Southern African waters (MFMR 2014b). Friends of the Sea (2008) noted that an extrapolation of an on board observer report of 24 fishing activities indicates that approximately 500 thousand sharks and 1 million skates could be bycaught every year by the Namibian and South African hake fisheries, some of these listed on the IUCN Redlist. But shark by-catch is not recorded (Russell 2009), so the data still remains to be confirmed by management authorities. The current hake management plan recognizes the problem of bycatch of non-commercial species, and includes strategies to better understand and minimize incidental mortality of these species. A NPOA for sharks is also to be approved and implemented in the near future (MFMR 2014b).

Other Species

Last updated on 6 August 2014

All catches are required to be landed and bycatch fees are charged by species and tonnage; but the extent to which such measures relate to effective fisheries management and assessment of stocks is unknown. Bycatch is monitored by onboard observers and subject to percentage limits of hake. Discarding of quota species is not permitted and all catches have to be landed (juvenile hake should not be dumped and must be subtracted from the operator’s quota) (MFMR 2014b). In other words, it is illegal in the Namibian fisheries to discard “any edible or marketable fish taken as bycatch” (Namibia, 1993a, reg. 42).

Continued large catches of small hake and reported dumping of small fish in the hake trawl fishery have led, however, to the implementation of several measures to minimize bycatch of juvenile fish. Trawler operators are now required to deploy excluder devices on their nets (in addition to the 110 mm stretched mesh limits on the codend), to reduce catches of juvenile hake and other bycatch species. Spatial and temporal restrictions are also in force to protect juvenile hake: the entire fishery is closed in October; since 2006, for fishing grounds south of 25°S, wet-fish trawlers are also banned from fishing within the 300 m isobath, and freezer vessels within 350 m (MFMR 2011, 2014b; Davies et al. 2015).

In addition, bycatch limits are placed on species such as devil anglerfish (or monkfish; Lophius vomerinus) and kingklip (Genypterus capensis), which if exceeded, incur high levies (dumping is not permitted). The levels of bycatch fees are carefully balanced to discourage the capture of non-target species, but are also not so punitive as to encourage dumping. A certain percentage of bycatch in the hake-directed fishery is not levied, since a certain degree of bycatch cannot be avoided. Until 2002 the hake-directed fisheries took about 30% of the total devil anglerfish (known as monk) catch as bycatch. With the further implemented measures to reduce bycatch, the percentage has dropped to about 15% (MFMR 2014b). Devil anglerfish was classified by IUCN in 2010 as “Near Threatened” (Dooley et al. 2010), although the 2012 stock assessment of Namibian monkfish concluded the stock to be slightly above the MSY level (Japp et al. 2012). Kingklip is not targeted in a directed fishery, and taken almost entirely as bycatch in the hake fisheries (Chilamba 2011). No biomass estimates are available for Namibia (Japp et al. 2012), but in South Africa the species is considered to be fully exploited as a result of bycatch rates (WWF 2010).

HABITAT

Last updated on 6 August 2014

Demersal trawlers represent the major fraction of the fishing fleet that is licensed to harvest hake: in 2007 there were 62 wet-fish trawlers (23–70 m length) and 25 freezer trawlers (24–73 m length) licensed (MFMR 2007b). Trawlers target hake (Merluccius capensis and M. paradoxus) and are only allowed to operate in deeper waters (deeper than the 300 m isobath) (MFMR 2011, 2014b). Demersal longliners (19-42 m length range) also target hake (with smaller quantities of highly valuable kingklip Genypterus capensis and snoek Thyrsites atun), but represent less than 8% of the total hake catches (MFMR 2011, 2014b).

There is an ongoing debate with respect to habitat impacts caused by longlining and trawling. This issue has been highly politicized, relating to selectivity of the two gears. Historically trawling for hake has remained on mostly soft substrate types using standard otter trawl gear. More recently trawler operators have diversified gears using different door types (mostly lighter gear that can fish in midwater). However, at present the specific trawling impacts on the substrate and benthic biodiversity off Namibian waters are still unknown; two of the relevant strategies anticipated by the new management plan are: (1) to “extend research measures on the effect of trawling and other gear types on substrate habitat and benthic community, including a review of the effectiveness of current protected areas”; and (2) “To introduce mitigating methods after stakeholder consultations, including establishing closed areas” (MFMR 2014b). There is also an ongoing MSC project addressing this particular issue. The areas already closed to trawling in order to protect juvenile hake (see previous section), may already be providing some degree of protection to the benthic habitats in these areas (Davies et al. 2015).

Marine Reserves

Last updated on 06 Aug 2014

In Namibian waters south of 25°S, closed areas to trawling are in place to protect hake juveniles and spawning grounds: wet-fish trawlers are banned from fishing within the 300 m isobath, and freezer vessels within 350 m. There is also a full a closure of the directed hake fishery in October (again to protect juvenile hake, which are perceived to move offshore and mix with adult fish) (MFMR 2014b).

The only know Namibian MPA stretches about 350 km along the southern coastline, extending about 30 km seawards from the shore. This MPA includes 11 offshore islands and a number of species-rich coastline areas with varying types of protection (Davies et al. 2015). Namibia’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan include a strategic aim to maintain existing MPAs and proclaim new areas.

FishSource Scores

SELECT SCORES

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is < 6.

Assessment and management are still not taking into account stocks differentiation (two species means at least two different stock units). A second management plan (MP) has been established for the period 2014-2018, with objectives for a stock recovery to MSY levels (MFMR 2014a); however no harvest control rule is known to be in place. The previous MP included a strategy to set TAC at 80% of the previous 5-years average of replacement yield, but it has yet to have been implemented (Japp et al. 2012). Despite the poor condition of the stock, which is still estimated at critical levels, TACs have been generally set higher than the recommended by scientists (Kirchner et al. 2012; Paterson et al. 2013).

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is < 6.

Historically, TACs have generally been set above the scientifically advised (Paterson et al. 2013). The recommended TACs from 2012 to present could not be located; according to unofficial reports the agreed TAC for 2012/2013 (170,000 t) was 30% above the recommended by scientists to the Advisory council (130,000 t) (The Namibian 2012).

As calculated for 2011 data.

The score is 10.0.

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

The Catch is 154 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 180 ('000 t) .

The underlying Catch/Set TAC for this index is 85.6%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2012 data.

The score is 3.7.

This measures the SSB as a percentage of the .

The SSB is 809 ('000 t). The is .

The underlying SSB/ for this index is .

As calculated for 2012 data.

The score is 6.4.

This measures the Ratio harvest/replacement yield as a percentage of the Target harvest rate.

The Ratio harvest/replacement yield is 1.13 . The Target harvest rate is 0.800 (Y/SSB from management plan) .

The underlying Ratio harvest/replacement yield/Target harvest rate for this index is 141%.

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. Publicly reliable information on management matters and stock assessment results are irregularly made public.
  2. Catch is presented as relative to replacement yield. As 80% of the replacement yield is reserved for fishing (remaining 20% left to rebuild the stock) (Kirchner et al., 2012), this value is used as a proxy of fishing mortality reference point.
  3. All values (i.e. catches, TAC, spawning biomass, catch rates) are for Merluccius paradoxus and M. capensis combined. Catches from 2009 are assumed catches.
  4. SSB estimates grpahed are derived from the ratio Spawning biomass (SSB)/pre-exploitable spawning biomass (Ksp= 5976 thousand tonnes) (from Table 2 and Figure 7; Kirchner et al., 2012).
  5. SSB Catch/replacement yield and estimates are based on the base case model (Kirchner et al., 2012).
  6. Currently, the hake fishing season runs from 1st November to 30th September of the following year (MFMR, 2014a). 2014/15 TAC refers to a period of 18 months;  from 1st May 2014 to 30st Sep 2015 (NFI undated).

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

Namibian hake trawl and longline fishery

STATUS

MSC Full Assessment

Sources

Credits

Additional References and Sources

  • Kirchner, C.H., 2011. An assessment and management of Namibian hake (Merluccius capensis and M. paradoxus) by using an age-structured production model. National Marine Information and Research Centre. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. HWG/Wkshop/2010/doc2. 30 pp.
  • MFMR, 2014b. Management Plan for the Namibian Hake Fishery for the period 2014 – 2018. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). Windhoek, Namibia.
  1. Anderson, O., Small, C., Croxall, J., Dunn, E., Sullivan, B., Yates, O. and Black, A., 2011. Global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. Endangered Species Research, 14, 2: 91-106.http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/esr/v14/n2/p91-106/
  2. BCC, 2012. The ECOFISH project. Benguela Current Commission Website. [Accessed on 22 August 2012].http://www.benguelacc.org/index.php/en/activities/the-science-programme/implementation-of-the-eaf/item/23-ecofish
  3. BCLME, 2004. An Assessment of the State of Commercial Fisheries Catch Data in the BCLME Region. BCLME Project LMR/CF/03/02. 24 May 2004. Prepared by Richard Aukland and Chris Ninnes.http://www.dlist-benguela.org/remository/Download/BCLME/Summary_Report_LMR_or_CF_or_03_or_02/
  4. Benguela Current Commission (BCC), 2014. Report of the Benguela Current Commission – ECOFISH WP1-WP2 Hake Biology Workshop. MARAM/IWS/DEC14/Hake/P9. 12 – 13 November 2014. 22 pp.http://www.benguelacc.org/index.php/en/component/docman/doc_download/584-programme-asf2014
  5. BirdLife International 2012. Morus capensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. Downloaded on 06 August 2014.http://www.iucnredlist.org
  6. BirdLife International, 2013. Seabird mortality estimate for the Namibian demersal Hake trawl fishery. SBWG5 Doc 41 Rev 1. Fifth Meeting of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group. La Rochelle, France, 1 - 3 May 2013. 5 pp.http://www.acap.aq/index.php/en/working-groups/doc_download/2058-sbwg5-doc-41-rev-1-seabird-mortality-estimate-for-the-namibian-demersal-hake-trawl-fishery
  7. Chilamba , V.J., 2011. Biomass distribution of kingklip (Genypterus capensis) off the Namibian coast during summer. BSc Thesis. Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia. November 2011. 42 pp.http://digital.unam.na/bitstream/handle/11070.1/1545/chilamba_biomass_2011.pdf?sequence=1
  8. Davies, S., A. Hjort, and H. Boyer. 2015. Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem: State of the Marine Environment, 2014. 1st Edition. Benguela Current Commission, Swakopmund, Namibia. http://www.nfds.info/assets/BCC-SOMER-2014-report-FINAL.pdf
  9. Dooley, J., Matsuura, K., Collette, B., Nelson, J., Fritzsche, R. & Carpenter, K. 2010. Lophius vomerinus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. [Accessed on 13 February 2012].http://www.iucnredlist.org
  10. Elago, P.N. 2002. Trawling and Longlining in Namibian Hake Industry. Department of Economics. Norwegian College of Fishery Science. University of Tromsø, Norway. May 2002.http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/bitstream/10037/312/1/thesis.pdf
  11. FAO, 2010. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Statistics and Information Service. FishStatJ: Universal software for fishery statistical time series. Copyright 2011.http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en
  12. Friends of the Sea, 2008. Friend of the Sea refuses to certify as sustainable the Namibian and South African Hake Trawl fisheries.http://fos.bondwaresite.com/photos/Friend_of_the_Sea_refuses_to_certify_as_sustainable_the_Namibian_and_South_A_-_Newsfood_com.pdf
  13. Globefish, 2010. 2010-11 TAC information for Namibian hake; retrieved 2 March 2011.http://www.globefish.org/groundfish-april-2010.html
  14. Globefish, 2011. Groundfish – August 2011 [accessed 9 February 2012]. http://www.globefish.org/groundfish-august-2011.html
  15. Hofmeyr, G. & N. Gales, 2008. Arctocephalus pusillus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. [Accessed on 10 February 2012.]http://www.iucnredlist.org
  16. Japp, D.W., Purves, M.G. and Wilkinson, S. 2012. State of Stocks Review: Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME). Report No. 2 (2012). Benguela Current Commission. Capricorn Fisheries Monitoring.105 pp.http://www.benguelacc.org/images/Claire_PDFs/SOS%20Report%202012%20LOW.pdf
  17. Kirchner, C. and Leiman, A., 2014. Resource rents and resource management policies in Namibia’s post-Independence hake fishery. Maritime Studies, 13, 1: 7.http://www.maritimestudiesjournal.com/content/13/1/7/abstract
  18. Kirchner, Carola, Paul Kainge, and Johannes Kathena, 2012, "Evaluation of the Status of the Namibian Hake Resource (Merluccius spp.) using Statistical Catch-at-Age Analysis", Environment for Development Discussion Paper Series October 2012, EfD DP 12-12.http://www.efdinitiative.org/research/publications/publications-repository/evaluation-of-the-status-of-the-namibian-hake-resource-merluccius-spp-using-statistical-catch-at-age-analysis
  19. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), 2007. Promoting Market Access for Fishery Products from the SADC Region through Fishery Certification. Marine Stewardship Council Final Report to TradeMark. Report period: Feb – May 2011.http://www.trademarksa.org/sites/default/files/publications/Final%20Report%20%7C%20Promoting%20Market%20Access%20Through%20Fisheries%20Certification.pdf
  20. MFMR, 2007a. National Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). Republic of Namibia. January 2007. Windhoek, Namibia. 21 pp.http://www.mfmr.gov.na/documents/53305/832050/Namibia_NPOA_IUU_Final/b0e565b3-f7d2-4652-ae3d-c3726abd63d9
  21. MFMR, 2007b. National Plan of Action (Npoa) for the Management of Fishing Capacity. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). Republic of Namibia. August 2007. Windhoek, Namibia. 21 pp.ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/IPOAS/national/namibia/NPOACapacity2007.pdf
  22. MFMR, 2009. Namibian Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources website [Accessed 10 February 2012].http://www.mfmr.gov.na/
  23. MFMR, 2011. DRAFT Management Plan for the Namibian Hake Fishery for the period May 2011 to April 2014. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). 31 March 2011. 36 pp. http://acpfish2-eu.org/uploads/projects/id7/Namibian%20Hake%20Management%20Plan%20March%202011.pdf
  24. MFMR, 2012a. Annual Fishing Industry Address by Hon. Bernhard Esau (MP). Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). Walvis bay, Namibia. 29 February 2012. 32 pp.http://209.88.21.36/opencms/export/sites/default/grnnet/MFMR/media/docs/Ministerxs_Address_to_the_Fishing_Industry.PDF
  25. MFMR, 2012b. Determination of Total Allowable Catch in Respect of Hake and Monk: Marine Resources Act, 2000. No. 145. Government Gazette of The Republic of Namibia. No. 4966. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). Windhoek, 25 May 2012.http://www.mof.gov.na/Government_gazette/june/%234966-Government%20notice%20N144-151.pdf
  26. MFMR, 2014. Annual Fishing Industry Address by Hon. Bernhard Esau (MP). Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) Walvis bay, Namibia. 13 March 2014. 21 pp. http://www.mfmr.gov.na/documents/53305/832050/Hon++Minister's+Speech+to+the+Fishing+Industry+13+March+2014+(3).pdf/ad1046b0-6891-4720-8616-1de0fe752289
  27. Namibian Fishing Industry (NFI), 2014. Hake management plan implemented (Namibian, 04/11/14). Namibian Fishing Industry (NFI) website. published 10 November 2014.http://www.namibianfishingindustry.com/?p=638
  28. NFI, undated. Total Allowable Catches (TAC’s). Namibian Fishing Industry (NFI) website. Accessed 6 August 2014.http://www.namibianfishingindustry.com/?page_id=202
  29. Paterson, B., and P. Kainge. 2014. Rebuilding the Namibian hake fishery: a case for collaboration between scientists and fishermen. Ecology and Society 19(2): 49.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06370-190249
  30. Paterson, B., C. Kirchner, and R. E. Ommer., 2013. A short history of the Namibian hake fishery—a social-ecological analysis. Ecology and Society 18(4): 66.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05919-180466
  31. Russell, D., 2009. Certification of the hake industry in Namibia. Project commissioned by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to the Institute for Security Studies (ISS).http://www.unep.ch/etb/areas/fisheries%20country%20projects/south%20africa/Certification%20of%20the%20hake%20industry%20in%20Namibia.pdf
  32. Seafish, 2008. Seafish Guide to Responsible Sourcing of Hake. http://www.seafish.org/pdf.pl?file=seafish/Documents/Hake%20Factsheet%202008%20FINAL%20(2)%20as%20at%20040808.pdf
  33. Seafish, 2013. Responsible Sourcing Guide: Hake. Version 7- May 2013. 9 pp.http://www.seafish.org/media/publications/SeafishResponsibleSourcingGuide_hake_201305.pdf
  34. SouthAfrica.info, 2010. "SA consumers help rebuild fish stocks" (1 Oct 2010); retrieved 2 March 2011.http://www.southafrica.info/about/sustainable/sassi-011010.htm
  35. The Namibian, 2012. Bigger quotas ‘not a threat to fish’, by Jan Poolman (15 June 2012). ‘The Namibian’ Newspaper website. [Accessed on 22 August 2012].http://www.namibian.com.na/news/full-story/archive/2012/june/article/bigger-quotas-not-a-threat-to-fish/
  36. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2010. SASSI – The Southern African Sustainable Seafood Initiative Seafood Database.http://www.wwfsassi.co.za/?m=5&s=5&idkey=1045
References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Cape hakes - Namibian coast

    comments powered by Disqus