argenne red shrimp - seafood watch · argenne red shrimp pleocus muelleri argen na/southwest atlan...

Argen ne Red Shrimp

Pleo cus muelleri

Argen na/Southwest Atlan c

Bo om trawls (Industrial fleet)

September 6, 2016

Venancio Guedes de Azevedo, Carla Beatriz Barbosa, Consul ng Researchers

DisclaimerSeafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by externalscien sts with exper se in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scien fic review, however, does notcons tute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommenda ons on the part of thereviewing scien sts. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

234557

1111152227303135

Table of Contents

Table of ContentsAbout Seafood WatchGuiding PrinciplesSummaryFinal Seafood RecommendationsIntroductionAssessment

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessmentCriterion 2: Impacts on other speciesCriterion 3: Management EffectivenessCriterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

AcknowledgementsReferencesAppendix A: Extra By Catch Species

2

About Seafood Watch

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught andfarmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainableseafood as origina ng from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase produc onin the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makesits science-based recommenda ons available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can bedownloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important oceanconserva on issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommenda on on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Eachreport synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, thenevaluates this informa on against the program’s conserva on ethic to arrive at a recommenda on of “BestChoices,” “Good Alterna ves” or “Avoid.” The detailed evalua on methodology is available upon request. Inproducing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewedjournals whenever possible. Other sources of informa on include government technical publica ons, fisherymanagement plans and suppor ng documents, and other scien fic reviews of ecological sustainability. SeafoodWatch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scien sts, andmembers of industry and conserva on organiza ons when evalua ng fisheries and aquaculture prac ces.Capture fisheries and aquaculture prac ces are highly dynamic; as the scien fic informa on on each specieschanges, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommenda ons and the underlying Seafood Reports will beupdated to reflect these changes.

Par es interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture prac ces and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems arewelcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more informa on about Seafood Watch® andSeafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

3

Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as origina ng from sources, whether fished or farmed, that canmaintain or increase produc on in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affectedecosystems.

Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evalua ng wildcatchfisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

How does fishing affect the species under assessment?

How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species?

How effec ve is the fishery’s management?

How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

Factors to evaluate and score

Guidelines for integra ng these factors to produce a numerical score and ra ng

Once a ra ng has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommenda on. Criteria ra ngs andthe overall recommenda on are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocketguide and online guide:

Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause li le harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alterna ve/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught.

Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other marinelife or the environment.

“Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates

1

1

4

Summary

This report focuses on the industrial Argen ne red shrimp (Pleo cus muelleri) trawl fishery in Argen na andincludes assessment of this species, impacts on other species (bycatch), management effec veness, andimpacts on habitats and ecosystems. The coastal trawl fleet is not included in this report, but is currently underassessment by Seafood Watch. There is also a small-scale net fishery (in the Buenos Aires region) that is notincluded in this report and will not be assessed by SFW because of its small produc on capacity.

This species has commercial value in interna onal markets and is one of the main export products of theArgen ne fishing industry. Commercial products include frozen whole, graded, and tails both in shell andshelled.

The Argen ne red shrimp has a rela vely short life span (es mated at 2 years), with extremely high andvariable growth rates in space and me, with almost total replacement of biomass in 2 years. Because ofbiological characteris cs and the strong environmental influence over biomass, it is not possible to establishthe maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or similar annual or biannual stock measure (nor is MSY necessarily anappropriate reference point for this fishery). The species is caught at the maximum advisable levels, andmanagers recommend maintaining current fishing pressure. The fishery is regulated via closures to protectjuveniles and reproduc ve stages.

The trawl fisheries typically have high bycatch and discard levels, and catch some species of concern(e.g. Narrowmouthed catshark and Yellownose skate). DISELA II, the hake bycatch reduc on device,significantly reduced the amount of hake bycatch, but it is unknown if it reduces bycatch of other species.

Management measures are based on species rather than on the ecosystem. There appear to be no integratedmanagement plans in Argen na.

Several changes have occurred to the seafloor in the Gulf of San Jorge, where the industrial fishery occurs, thatcan be a ributed to several natural and anthropogenic factors that act together. These changes are:defauna on, a high percentage of dead bivalves and development of anoxic condi ons in the bo om water andsediment. There is no specific study of the impact of the red shrimp fishery on the ocean floor, but the use ofmobile fishing gear has become a source of concern because of the size of the affected fishing grounds.

Because of the impacts of the fishery on other species and because bycatch management needs significantimprovement, the Argen ne red shrimp bo om trawl fishery is rated Red or "Avoid" (score 1.973).

Final Seafood Recommenda ons

Summary

The Argen ne Red Shrimp (Pleo cus muelleri) is found from Río de Janeiro, Brasil to Santa Cruz,Argen na. This report covers the Argen ne Red Shrimp bo om trawl fishery in Argen na.

The avoid (score 1.973) rank for Red Shrimp from Argen na is driven by the impacts of the fishery on otherspecies and to the fact that some effec ve management is in place for the target species, but there is a needfor bycatch measures to protect sensi ve species.

SPECIES/FISHERY

CRITERION1: IMPACTSON THESPECIES

CRITERION 2:IMPACTS ONOTHERSPECIES

CRITERION 3:MANAGEMENTEFFECTIVENESS

CRITERION 4:HABITAT ANDECOSYSTEM

OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

Argen ne redshrimpArgen naSouthwestAtlan c, Bo omtrawls

Yellow (2.644) Red (1.272) Red (1.732) Yellow (2.598) Avoid (1.972)

5

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing opera ons have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Cri cal scores

Good Alterna ve/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor BycatchManagement Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and noCri cal scores

Avoid/Red = Final Score ≤2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Cri cal scores.

Because effec ve management is an essen al component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommenda on forany fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

2

6

Introduc on

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommenda on

This report covers the industrial Argen ne red shrimp (Pleo cus muelleri) trawl fishery in Argen na. Thefishery primarily occurs in Patagonia in the Gulf of San Jorge, and is prosecuted by an industrial fleet oftangoneros (shrimp trawlers) that freeze their product on board. The coastal fleet from Rawson port, whichstows its catch in ice and lands fresh product, is not included in this report but is currently under assessmentby Seafood Watch. Because of its small produc on capacity, the small-scale fleet from the Buenos Aires regionthat primarily fishes with nets is not included in this report and will not be assessed by Seafood Watch.

Species Overview

The Argen ne red shrimp is a benthic species occurring in the Southwestern Atlan c Ocean from the coast ofSanta Cruz, Argen na (approximate la tude 50º00'S) north to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (approximate la tude23º00'S). The fishery is managed as one stock, although it is thought that there may be mul ple stock subunits (De Carli et al. 2012). The fishery is carried out mainly in the area bounded by la tudes 43º and 47º00'S andlongitude 63º00'W and the coast, targe ng shrimp at depths between 3 and 100 meters (m).

The fishery is among the 25 major shrimp fisheries in the world. It began with the discovery of a significantconcentra on of the species in the Gulf of San Jorge waters in the late 1970s, growing to a size of 100 vesselsbetween 1979 and 1984. The first tangoneros (shrimp vessels), opera ng with bo om trawls, appeared at theend of the 1980s and early 1990s. The fishery is s ll evolving, with modern vessels that are highly efficient atcapturing the target species using double-beam trawls (Cedrola et al. 2012), (Góngora et al 2012), (Bertuche etal. 2000). In the San Jorge Gulf, Patagonia, this fleet comprises 80 freezer vessels that are responsible for morethan 75% of shrimp landings in Argen na (Góngora et al 2012).

Figure 1 Distribu on and fishery of the Argen ne red shrimp (Pleo cus muellerii) in Argen na (Bertuche et al.2000).

Fishing for Argen ne red shrimp in Patagonia is economically more significant than small-scale fishing withnets in the Buenos Aires region: 99.7% of catches comes from the Patagonian fishery concentrated in the Gulfof San Jorge, whose industrial fleet accounts for 75% of landings (Bertuche et al. 2000). The product isgenerally frozen on board, whole or without head, and classified by size intended for different businesscategories. The Rawson fleet is not included in this report (it is currently under assessment), but it primarilylands its catch fresh and accounts for 15% of landings (Fishbach 2013) (Spanjersberg et al. 2013).

With regard to red shrimp's biological characteris cs and environmental influence, it is not possible toestablish the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or similar annual or biannual measure with a strong biologicalbasis. For management purposes, it is considered a single stock (Bertuche et al. 2000) (Argen na 2007).

7

Figure 2 Life cycle of the Argen ne red shrimp (Pleo cus muellerii) (De Carli et al. 2012).

Fisheries management in Argen na is carried out by the Federal Fisheries Council (CFP), which was created bylaw number 24,922 in 1982 to promote the sustainability of fishing ac vi es and conserva on of resources.The Na onal Fisheries Research and Development Ins tute (INIDEP) is the scien fic advisor to the CFP onfisheries management (pers. comm., María Eva Góngora 2015).

Produc on Sta s cs

The Argen ne red shrimp fishery largely consists of double-beam trawl vessels. It is the main crustaceanfishery in the Southwestern Atlan c Ocean (Cedrola et al. 2012) (Góngora et al 2012) (Bertuche et al. 2000). Itis primarily an export fishery, sending the majority of its product to Europe and Asia, with a small butincreasing propor on to the United States.

The capture of Argen ne red shrimp in the period between 1990 and 2012 is shown in the following figure.

8

Figure 3 Captures of Argen ne red shrimp (Pleo cus muellerii) from the Argen ne fleet from 1990-2012 (BID2013).

Argen ne red shrimp has an annual cycle, with fluctua ons in abundance related to environmental andoceanographic condi ons. Oceanographic fluctua ons could be the cause of mortality in the early lifestages. These fluctua ons are observed in the landings, with a maximum in 2011 (80,000 tonnes) and aminimum in 2006 (7,400 tonnes) (BID 2013). Given these fluctua ons, there is considerable uncertainty in theproduc on and availability of product (Argen na 2007). This species is currently captured up to the maximumadvisable levels (UNEP 2002) (BID 2013).

Importance to the US/North American market.

In 2014, the United States imported shrimp from 53 countries; most of it came from India, Indonesia, Ecuador,Vietnam, and Thailand (NOAA 2015). The following figures show U.S. shrimp imports from Argen na between2010 and 2014, in kilograms and in U.S. dollars. The figures show a growing trend during this period.

Figure 4 U.S. imports of Argen ne red shrimp, in kilos (2010-2014) (NOAA 2015).

Figure 5 U.S. imports of Argen ne red shrimp, in USD (2010-2014) (NOAA 2015).

The propor on of Argen ne red shrimp to the total U.S. imports from Argen na between 2010 and 2014 (inkilos) oscillates from a low in 2010 of 1.0% to a high in 2014 of 15.2%.

9

Figure 6 Argen ne red shrimp as a propor on of total U.S. imports from Argen na, in kilos (NOAA 2015).

The propor on of Argen ne red shrimp to the total U.S. imports from Argen na between 2010 and 2014 (inUS dollars) displays the same feature, with the lowest propor on in 2010 (2.8%) to the high value in 2014(24.8%).

Figure 7 Argen ne red shrimp as a propor on of total U.S. imports from Argen na, in USD (NOAA 2015)(Góngora et al. 2012).

Common and market names.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Adminstra on, the market name of Pleo cus muelleri is "Shrimp" and thecommon name is "Argen ne Red Shrimp" (USFDA 2015).

Primary product forms

In Argen na, commercial products of the industrial Argen ne red shrimp fishery include frozen whole, graded,tails on or off, both in shell and shelled (Schonberger and Agar 2001). Most exports of Pleo cus muelleri arefrozen whole raw shrimp (packed in 2kg boxes) (Argen na 2007). The main Argen ne export des na ons areSpain (45%), Japan (19%), Italy (15%), China (7%), and the United States (2%) (Argen na 2014).

10

Assessment

This sec on assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) rela ve to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries,available at h p://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment

This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. Theinherent vulnerability to fishing ra ng influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown.

The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortalityscores. The Criterion 1 ra ng is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern

Score >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern

Score ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cri cal

Criterion 1 Summary

Criterion 1 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteris csthat make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing).

Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life historycharacteris cs that make it neither par cularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age atsexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle offood chain).

High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteris csthat make is par cularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), lowreproduc on rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index ofthe inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, ageat first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spa al behaviors (e.g., schooling,aggrega ng for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduc on) andgeographic range.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the popula on is above target abundance level (e.g.,biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.

4 (Low Concern)—Popula on may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished

3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherentvulnerability to fishing.

2 (High Concern)—Popula on is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknownand the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.

ARGENTINE RED SHRIMP

Region / MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

Argen na/Southwest Atlan cBo om trawls

3.00: Low 3.00: ModerateConcern

2.33: ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

11

1 (Very High Concern)—Popula on is listed as threatened or endangered.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishingmortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribu on tothe mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).

3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, butsome uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but itscontribu on to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the popula on is healthyand the species has a low suscep bility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).

2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctua ng around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality isunknown and species has a moderate-high suscep bility to the fishery and, if species is depleted,reasonable management is in place.

1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishingmortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.

0 (Cri cal)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtailoverfishing.

ARGENTINE RED SHRIMP


ARGENTINA/SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, BOTTOM TRAWLS

Low

The overall inherent vulnerability score from analysis is 2.75 (between 2.46 and 3), which ranks as "low"inherent vulnerability (Bertuche et al. 2000) (Glembocki et al. 2015) (Holthuis 1980) (Macchi et al. 1992)(Ruiz & Mendia, 2008).

Resiliencea ribute

Score= 1 Score = 2 Score = 3

Average age atmaturity < 5 years

Average maximumage < 10 years

Fecundity N/A

Average maximumsize N/A N/A N/A

Average size atmaturity N/A N/A N/A

Reproduc vestrategy

Broadcastspawner

Trophic Level N/A N/A N/A

Density

Nodepensatoryorcompensatory

12



dependence dynamicsdemonstratedor likely


Moderate Concern

The Argen ne red shrimp has a high reproduc ve poten al, with an almost total replacement of biomassavailable between two successive years of fishing (Bertuche et al. 2000) (De Carli et al. 2012). Because ofseveral characteris cs that affect biomass (i.e., a short life cycle, high growth rate, high reproduc ve poten al,and spa al and temporal variability of recruitment), it is not possible to establish the maximum sustainableyield (MSY) or similar annual or biannual measure for this species with a strong biological basis (Bertuche etal. 2000).

In 2014, the rela ve density of shrimp vulnerable to fishing for the northern and southern Gulf of St. Georgewas obtained by the swept area method, es mated from the density values obtained in fishing bids. Theaverage density es mate for the southern Gulf, assuming a catchability q = 1, was 5.97 t/nm . The biomassof the en re southern area was 11,908.75 tons (90% CI ± 1,920), calculated based on the 2013 summercampaign (there was no significant difference from the values obtained from previous summer campaigns).The northern Gulf biomass was 14,801 tons (90% CI ± 3,720), 57% of which (8,414 t) is from coastal areas.The rela ve abundances of shrimp in the recruitment process (LC ≤ 25 mm) for this campaign were 62% forthe southern Gulf region and 48% for the north (De La Garza, 2014).

The rela onship between the rela ve abundance of mature and impregnated females of Argen ne red shrimpand environmental variables was connected to the bo om water temperature and salinity, and to depth. Therela onship increased along with temperature; however, with salinity, the rela onship decreased for maturefemales and increased for impregnated females (pers. comm., Alejandra Cornejo 2015) (Fernández et al.2011).

The biological characteris cs of the Argen ne red shrimp in conjunc on with the varia on in the level ofannual commercial fishing recruitment of this species can nega vely affect its abundance (De Carli et al.2012).

Abundance is assessed as "moderate" concern because there is no evidence to suggest that the stock is eitherabove or below reference points; stock inherent vulnerability is low (as scored in Factor 1.1).

2


Moderate Concern

Among the crustaceans on the central Patagonian shelf, the most abundant single species producing thehighest yield is the Argen ne red shrimp (Pleo cus muelleri) (FAO 2011).

It is unknown whether overfishing is occurring, but the biological features, along with the fluctua on in thelevel of annual commercial fishing recruitment (when the young individuals become vulnerable to capture in afishery (NOAA 2006)) generate the observed variability in the abundance of biomass available for the shrimpfleet. This puts the resource at permanent risk of overfishing in the growth phase and overfishing in therecruitment phase (De Carli et al. 2012).

Ra onale:

Growth overfishing occurs when the effort is so high that the total yield decreases with increasing effort.Individuals are caught before they can grow to a sufficiently large size to substan ally contribute to the13

biomass (Sparre & Venema 1998). Recruitment overfishing is a situa on in which the rate of fishing is (or hasbeen) such that annual recruitment to the exploitable stock has become significantly reduced. The situa on ischaracterized by a greatly reduced spawning stock, a decreasing propor on of older individuals in the catch,and generally very low recruitment year a er year (NOAA 2006).

14

Criterion 2: Impacts on other species

All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species underassessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality orinjury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened speciescatch, and ghost fishing.

To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is mul pliedby the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) andbait use rela ve to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 ra ng is determined as follows:




Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cr cal

Criterion 2 Summary

Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 sec on; a full list andassessment of the main species can be found in Appendix B.

The listed bycatch species in the Argen ne red shrimp fishery were obtained from the available literature. Theirinclusion in this report followed the criteria suggested by SWAT: the catch of the species in the fishery underassessment makes up > 5% of that fishery catch; the species is overfished, depleted, a stock of concern,Endangered, Threatened, IUCN Near Threatened, and/or subject to overfishing; are charisma c species; orincluded turtles, marine mammals, and birds.


SCORING GUIDELINES


(same as Factor 1.1 above)

ARGENTINE RED SHRIMP - ARGENTINA/SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC - BOTTOM TRAWLS

Subscore: 1.414 Discard Rate: 0.90 C2 Rate: 1.272

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Pink cusk-eel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Spiny dogfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Yellownose skate 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Narrowmouthed catshark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

3.67:Low Concern Red (1.916)

Magellanic penguin 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

South American sea lion 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

Argen ne hake 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.053)

imperial shag 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

15





Pink cusk-eel




Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

High

The FishBase score for pink cusk-eel is 79 of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015), which corresponds to highvulnerability. The characteris cs of slow growth and high age at maturity contribute to low biologicalproduc on. High concentra ons of this species are observed in rela vely small areas during breeding. Thesefactors make it highly vulnerable to fishing, reflected in the high catches obtained during the firstquarter (Góngora 2011).

High Concern

Pink cusk-eel abundance shows a decreasing trend since 1995. Abundance in 2000 represented 58% of thecorresponding abundance for 1995. This represents a significant decrease in the reproduc ve stock over arela vely short period of me (Cordo 2006).

Abundance scores as "high" concern because this is a high vulnerability species with unknownabundance; there is no evidence to suggest that the stock is either above or below reference points.

High Concern

The pink cusk-eel is caught as bycatch in the red shrimp fishery in one of its main breeding areas, the Gulf ofSt. George, and is commercially exploited in the red shrimp fishery, presen ng high capturefrequency (Góngora 2011). The pink cusk-eel is not targeted by the Argen ne red shrimp fishery, but thisfishery is a substan al contributor to its mortality; the species is considered unsustainable bycatch (Góngora2011). Fishing mortality is considered "high" concern because the fishery contribu on is unknown, but thepopula on is depleted and no reasonable management to curtail overfishing is in place (Seafood Watch2013).

40-60%

Shrimp trawling is generally regarded as one of the least selec ve fishing methods, because the bycatch mayconsist of over several hundred teleost species and outweigh the shrimp catch by 20 to 1 or more. No otherfishing method comes close to matching such discarding and wastage of marine resources (Eayrs 2007).

In 2000, the red shrimp tangoneros trawl in Argen na had landings of 36,823 MT, a discard rate of 50.1%,and discards of 37,000 MT (Kelleher 2005).

16





Spiny dogfish





The shrimp beam-trawl fishery (discard rate 50%) discards substan al quan es of juvenile hake (Kelleher2005).

For the red shrimp coastal fishery, discarding occurs in over 90% of trips (CeDePesca report).

High

The FishBase score is 68 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015), which corresponds to a score of highvulnerability.

High Concern

Between 1995 and 2005, spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) abundance was reduced by 50% on the northernArgen nean Con nental Shelf (38–45°S) (Massa et al. 2007), whereas in the Patagonian region, theabundance assessed by the INIDEP for S. acanthias increased threefold between 1997 and 2001 (Cedrola etal. 2012). This species is listed as "Vulnerable" by the IUCN (Fordham et al. 2006).

Abundance scores as "high" concern because current abundance is unknown (though may be depleted) andthe inherent vulnerability of this species is high (as scored in Factor 1.1).

High Concern

The principle threat to this species worldwide is overexploita on, by target and bycatch fisheries. This is avaluable commercial species in many parts of the world, caught in bo om trawls, gillnets, and line gear, andby rod and reel (Fordham et al. 2006). At least half the shark bycatch biomass was Squalus acanthias, one ofthe most abundant shark species in Argen ne waters (Cedrola et al. 2012) and, like most car laginous fish, S.acanthias is not subject to directed fisheries (Massa et al. 2007).

Based on 2003 bycatch survey data and S. acanthias biomass data collected between 1992 and 2001by INIDEP, the average annual bycatch of S. acanthias in the Argen ne red shrimp fishery representsapproximately 0.04% of the total biomass of this species (Marí 2005) in (Cedrola et al. 2012). Annual S.acanthias bycatch (based on the 2003 bycatch survey data) was es mated at 35.3 MT, which corresponds to0.09% of the total shrimp catch (Cedrola et al. 2012). Between 2003 and 2007, this species was captured in27% of the hauls observed in the freezer fleet (Gongora et al. 2009).

Fishing mortality for S. acanthias from the red shrimp fishery is less than that in the commercial hake fisheryin this region. But total fishing mortality for this species is unknown, with the popula on poten ally depleted(see the abundance response), and no reasonable management to curtail overfishing is in place, jus fying ascore of "high concern" for fishing mortality (Seafood Watch 2013).

17





Yellownose skate




40-60%





High

The FishBase score for yellownose skate is 57 of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015), which corresponds to highvulnerability.

High Concern

This species is listed as "Vulnerable" by IUCN (Kyne et al. 2007). Abundance scores as "high" concern becauseabundance in all Argen ne waters is unknown for this high vulnerability species.

Zearaja chilensis presented the highest values of rela ve abundance and the most abundant members of thefamily Rajidae in Patagonia (Crespi-Abril et al. 2013) (Alonso et al. 2001). According to (Crespi-Abril et al.2013), the mean value of rela ve abundance for Z. chilensis on the northern Patagonian shelf ranged between9.12 and 151 ind/sq km, and presented the highest values of abundance in autumn and winter.

High Concern

Yellownose skate (Zearaja chilensis) is a bycatch (o en retained) in several mul species demersal fisheriesthat operate within its Southwest Atlan c range; however, species-specific catch data are generallyunavailable (Kyne et al. 2007). It is a typical bycatch of the Argen ne red shrimp (Pleo cusmuelleri) fishery (Marí 2005) (pers. comm., Gustavo E. Chiaramonte 2015).

Fishing mortality for Z. chilensis from the red shrimp fishery is less than that in the commercial hake fishery inPatagonia, but total fishing mortality for this poten ally depleted species is unknown. This species wasobserved with a frequency of occurrence of 62% in the freezer fleet from 2003 and 2007 (Gongora et al.2009).

In 2007, the na onal plan of ac on for elasmobranch conserva on and management was created, but theinforma on available regarding species biology and the specific composi on of the elasmobranchs affected sofar is not sufficient to develop adequate management ac ons (Crespi-Abril et al. 2013).

18





Narrowmouthed catshark


Because F is unknown, the popula on is likely depleted, and no effec ve management is in place, fishingmortality receives a score of "high" concern(Seafood Watch 2013).

40-60%





High

The FishBase score for narrowmouthed catshark is 52 of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015), corresponding tomoderate vulnerability. But using the Seafood Watch produc vity scoring analysis (Seafood Watch 2013),narrowmouthed catshark is a high vulnerability species, based on its life history characteris cs that includebeing long-lived, a aining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a low reproduc ve rate (Seafood Watch2013).

Life historya ribute

Narrowmouthedcatshark(Schroederichthys bivius)

Score

Score= 1 Score = 2 Score

= 3

Average ageat maturity unknown

Averagemaximumage

unknown

Fecundity< 100eggs/yr

1

Averagemaximum

< 100cm 3

19





References used in Seafood Watch produc vity scoring analysis: (Compagno 1984) (Chiaramonte 2005)(Fowler et al. 2005) (Seafood Watch 2013) (Froese and Pauly 2015).

size

Average sizeat maturity

40-–200cm 2

Reproduc vestrategy

Demersalegg layer 2

Trophic Level > 3.25 1

Densitydependence N/A N/A N/A

1.8

High Concern

The abundance of S. bivius between 1997 and 2001 decreased threefold (Cedrola et al. 2012) (Gongora et al.2009). This species is listed as "Data-deficient" by IUCN (Fowler et al. 2005). Abundance scores as "high"concern because abundance is unknown and stock inherent vulnerability is high (as scored in Factor 1.1).

High Concern

The average annual bycatch in the Argen ne red shrimp fishery of the oviparous shark S. bivius represents0.07% of the total biomass reported by the INIDEP surveys between 1992 and 2001 (Marí 2005). Thebycatch of sharks in the red shrimp fishery was es mated at ~61 MT/year, equivalent to 0.15% of the shrimptotal capture in 2003. S. acanthias contributed with 30.5 MT (50.6%) while S. bivius contributed 22.6 MT(37.2%). Whereas the abundance for S. acanthias in Patagonian waters increased threefold between 1997 and2001, the abundance of S. bivius in the same period decreased by the same amount. Between 2003 and 2007,this species was captured in 26% of the hauls observed in the freezer fleet (Gongora et al. 2009). In addi on,losses of important reproduc ve sites in southern Patagonia for S. bivius were detected. These issues,together with the results presented in this report, add the Argen ne red shrimp fishery to the poten althreats to S. bivius (Cedrola et al. 2012).

According to Cedrola et al. (2012), in the double–beam trawl fishery for the Argen ne red shrimp (Pleo cusmuelleri), six species of sharks were recorded as bycatch: Squalus acanthias, Squalus mitsukurii, Squa naspp., Schroederichthys bivius, Galeorhinus galeus, and Mustelus schmi . Seven species of rays wererecorded: Bathyraja albomaculata, Dipturus flavirostris, Dipturus trachydermus, Psammoba s normani,Psammoba s bergi, Psammoba s rudis, and Sympterygia bonapartei (Cedrola et al., 2005). S. acanthias andZ. chilensis are typical species in this fishery (pers. comm., Gustavo E. Chiaramonte 2015).

The red shrimp fishery is a substan al contributor to mortality of this species, warran ng a score of "high"concern.

20



ARGENTINA/SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC

40-60%





21


Criterion 3: Management Effec veness

Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).

The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 ra ng is determinedas follows:



Score ≤2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is VeryHigh Concern = Red or High Concern

Ra ng is Cri cal if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor3.2) ra ngs are Cri cal.

Criterion 3 Summary


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scien ficResearch/Monitoring, Following of Scien fic Advice, Enforcement of Regula ons, Management Track Record,and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffec ve,’ ‘moderately effec ve,’ or ‘highly effec ve.’

5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effec ve’ for all seven subfactors considered

4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effec ve’ and allother subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effec ve.’

3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effec ve.’

2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effec ve’ for Management Strategy andRecovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffec ve.’

1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species ofConcern rated ‘ineffec ve.’

0 (Cri cal)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catchesthreatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, andunreported fishing occurring.

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Factor 3.1 Summary

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementa on

Considera ons: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals,

Region / Method Harvest Strategy Bycatch Strategy Score

Argen na / Southwest Atlan c / Bo om trawls 3.000 1.000 Red (1.732)

FACTOR 3.1: MANAGEMENT OF FISHING IMPACTS ON RETAINED SPECIES

Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion

Argen na /Southwest Atlan c/ Bo om trawls

ModeratelyEffec ve

N/A ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

22

and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effec ve ra ng, there mustbe appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful atmaintaining/rebuilding species.

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

Considera ons: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuildoverfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is theirlikelihood of success? To achieve a ra ng of Highly Effec ve, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihoodof success in an appropriate meframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimizemortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scien fic Research and Monitoring

Considera ons: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the popula on andthe fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, popula on assessments must beconducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the popula on status.

ARGENTINA / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, BOTTOM TRAWLS

Moderately Effec ve

The Federal Fisheries Council (CFP) manages Argen ne fisheries in federal waters, including the red shrimpfishery. The Ins tuto Nacional de Inves gación y Desarrollo Pesquero (Na onal Fisheries Research andDevelopment Ins tute) (INIDEP) provides scien fic advice on fisheries management to the CFP (pers. comm.,María Eva Góngora 2015).

The management of the Argen ne red shrimp fishery in the Gulf of St. George consists of effort restric onsand temporal and spa al closures. In the Santa Cruz jurisdic on, the largest Argen ne red shrimp spawningarea has been closed to fishing since 1985 (Góngora et al 2012). There is a system of mobile closures, whichcomplement restric ons such as minimum mesh size at the back of the net, escape devices for juvenile hake,limited me per fishing haul, towing speed, height at the mouth of the net, night fishing ban, and limits forthe allowable amount of broken specimens and of specimens of sizes less than 70 units per kilo (up to 20% oftotal processed weight) (CeDePesca 2014). The fishery does not have catch limits or an established maximumsustainable yield (MSY) (Bertuche et al. 2000). The strategy proposed for the Langos no Project by INIDEP isin line with the precau onary approach to fisheries management: management based on a con nuousassessment of the recruitment process; obtain periodic indicators of scenarios and future produc on; basedon informa on obtained in real me; propose pragma c steps quickly, as dynamic closures or boundaries;and occasionally significant changes in fishing funds (adap ve management) (Bertuche et al. 2000)

Management strategy scores as "moderate concern" because some effec ve management is in place, butthere is a need for increased precau on (Seafood Watch 2013). Shrimp recruitment success depends on themagnitude of the spawning biomass and on the environmental condi ons of the place in which the firststages of the life cycle are developed (Kalikoski et al. 2006). Therefore, no management measure canguarantee shrimp abundance every fishing season because it is impossible to control environmental factors.So, sustainable management could a empt to minimize the fishery's impact on stock resilience.


N/A

In the red shrimp fishery, most taxa are discarded because of the high value of the target species (Bovcon etal. 2013). This fishery does not target or retain species that are overfished, depleted, endangered, orthreatened.


Moderately Effec ve

The INIDEP (Ins tuto Nacional de Inves gación y Desarrollo Pesquero) has a monitoring program to track theabundance/stock health of red shrimp (De La Garza, J. 2014). It conducts surveys in May and August of eachyear in order to obtain es mates that allow correc ons on the state of resources and the prospects it offers

23

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scien fic Advice

Considera ons: How o en (always, some mes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scien ficrecommenda ons/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effec ve ra ng isgiven if managers nearly always follow scien fic advice.

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regula ons

Considera ons: Do fishermen comply with regula ons, and how is this monitored? To achieve a HighlyEffec ve ra ng, there must be regular enforcement of regula ons and verifica on of compliance.

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considera ons: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining popula ons at sustainablelevels or a history of failing to maintain popula ons at sustainable levels? A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given ifmeasures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of speciesover me.

(Bertuche et al. 2000), as well as analysis of annual sta s cs of landings (Fishbach 2013). There is an onboardobserver program (Fishbach 2013) and monitoring of fleet landings (Bertuche et al. 2000) (Fishbach 2013).

Scien fic research and monitoring scores as "moderately effec ve" because some data related to stockabundance and health are collected, but data may be insufficient (or too uncertain) to maintain the stock.


Moderately Effec ve

Research surveys are conducted annually in the southeastern area of the Gulf of St. George in the Patagonianregion. Depending on the shrimp sizes, the enforcement authority of Santa Cruz starts the harvest season inFebruary or March, and some mes implements temporary closures near the prohibi on area (Góngora2011). According to (Glembocki et al. 2015), the Gulf of St. George red shrimp fishery has remainedproduc ve for two decades despite the lack of a management strategy supported by regular stockassessments.

Scien fic advice scores as "moderately effec ve" because the management of this resource only some mesfollows scien fic advice .


Moderately Effec ve

There is a VMS (Vessel Monitoring System) but it does not fully meet interna onal standards. It is an opensystem instead of a “black box” system. Although there is a system of vessel monitoring by satellite forvessels larger than 25 m, the scheme does not include vessels below 25 m in a cost-effec ve way (Kalikoski etal. 2006). According to María Eva Góngora (pers. comm. 2015), there is VMS for vessels larger than 10 m,and only the ar sanal fleet does not have VMS.

The Fisheries Administra on and Surveillance Division is responsible for monitoring and enforcement, andconducts port inspec ons where they monitor landings, holds, and transshipments; measurefish/invertebrates; and monitor fishing gears. In 1997, an onboard inspector program was ini ated butdiscon nued because of concerns regarding the quality of the selec on and training of inspectors(Schonberger and Agar 2001).

Enforcement scores as "moderately effec ve" because there is some level of enforcement and monitoringmade by government (i.e., INIDEP), but effec veness is uncertain.


Moderately Effec ve

In the red shrimp fishery, management measures (e.g., a system of mobile closures, minimum mesh size at24

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion

Considera ons: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders areindividuals/groups/organiza ons that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by themanagement of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conserva on groups, etc.). A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if themanagement process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.

Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Management Strategy and Implementa on

Considera ons: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of thefishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effec vera ng, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place tominimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mi ga on measures, etc.).

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Scien fic Research and Monitoring

Considera ons: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch tomeasure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, assessments must be

the back of the net, escape devices, limited me per fishing haul, towing speed, height at the mouth of thenet, and a night fishing ban) are followed. The response to the management measures applied to thisfishery has been posi ve, although re cence persists to make use of escape devices (CeDePesca 2014).

The track record scores as "moderately effec ve" because the track record rela ve to maintaining red shrimpabundance at healthy levels is uncertain, which may be partly due to the strong influence of environmentalfactors on the biomass of this species.


Moderately Effec ve

The stakeholders in these fisheries are iden fied, but there are no clear and transparent systems ofpar cipa ve management to empower all sectors of the fishing industry in policy forma on and managementdecisions (Kalikoski et al. 2006). This factor is scored "moderately effec ve" because there isstakeholder involvement in the management process, but the level of involvement is unclear.

FACTOR 3.2: BYCATCH STRATEGY

Region / MethodAllKept Cri cal Strategy Research Advice Enforce

Argen na / Southwest Atlan c /Bo om trawls

No No Ineffec ve ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve


Ineffec ve

Even though the Argen ne red shrimp fishery affected six of the nine shark species inhabi ng the area, withan es mated annual shark bycatch of ~61 MT (equivalent to 0.15% of the shrimp total capture in 2003)(Cedrola et al. 2012), there is no management strategy to avoid these captures. The management of thisfishery has priori zed controlling hake bycatch, which is reasonable given the size and commercial importanceof this resource (Gongora et al. 2009). Escape devices for juvenile hake are used, but there is no evalua on ofthe level of compliance with this rule by the fleet and the extent to which these devices reduce hake bycatchor bycatch of other species (Góngora 2011) (Góngora et al. 2012).

Bycatch management strategy scores as "ineffec ve" because elasmobranchs and other species of concern arecaught as bycatch in this fishery, and the reduc on techniques used to minimize hake bycatch in shrimptrawls are not aimed at reducing bycatch of these species of concern.

25

conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch datacollec on program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Management Record of Following Scien fic Advice

Considera ons: How o en (always, some mes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scien ficrecommenda ons/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effec ve ra ng isgiven if managers nearly always follow scien fic advice.

Subfactor 3.2.5 – Enforcement of Management Regula ons

Considera ons: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow managementregula ons and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regula ons? To achieve a Highly Effec vera ng, there must be consistent enforcement of regula ons and verifica on of compliance.


Moderately Effec ve

The INIDEP (Ins tuto Nacional de Inves gación y Desarrollo Pesquero) has an onboard observer programmonitoring the bycatch captures of the Argen ne red shrimp fishery but does not cover all the fishing fleetcruises. INIDEP conducts annual fishery evalua on campaigns, including bycatch surveys (Marí 2005)(Bertuche et al. 2000).

Because the collec on of observer monitoring data exists, but coverage or analysis is limited, the scien ficresearch/monitoring scores as "moderately effec ve."


Moderately Effec ve

In the red shrimp fishery, most taxa are discarded because of the high value of the target species (Bovcon etal. 2013), and the management ac ons focus on these species. For bycatch, management only some mesfollows scien fic advice, scoring as "moderately effec ve." The day-to-day management is more focused onshort-term crises to balance conflicts of interest between different sectors. There is a lack of long-termpolicies, a lack of enough exper se on management issues, and a strong influence of poli cs or economicsover technical decisions (Kalikoski et al. 2006).


Moderately Effec ve

The VMS does not comply fully with interna onal standards. Although there is a system of vessel monitoringby satellite for vessels larger than 25 m, the scheme does not include vessels below 25 m in a cost-effec veway (Kalikoski et al. 2006). According María Eva Góngora (pers. comm. 2015), there is VMS for vessels largerthan 10 m, and only the ar sanal fleet does not have VMS.

The Fisheries Administra on and Surveillance Division is responsible for monitoring and enforcement andconducts port inspec ons where they monitor landings, holds, and transshipments; measure fish; andmonitor fishing gears. In 1997, an onboard inspector program was ini ated but discon nued because ofconcerns regarding the quality of the selec on and training of inspectors (Schonberger and Agar 2001).

Enforcement and monitoring scores as "moderately effec ve" because enforcement and monitoring are inplace, although effec veness may be uncertain.

26

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if thereare measures in place to mi gate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food weband the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem BasedFisheries Management aims to consider the interconnec ons among species and all natural and humanstressors on the environment.

The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mi ga on of gearimpacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 ra ng is determined asfollows:




Ra ng cannot be Cri cal for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bo om

4 (Very Low) - Ver cal line gear

3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bo om, but is not dragged along the bo om (e.g. gillnet, bo om longline, trap) and is not fished on sensi ve habitats. Bo om seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bo om occasionally

2 (Moderate)—Bo om dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap,or bo om longline fished on sensi ve boulder or coral reef habitat. Bo om seine except on mud/sand

1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensi ve habitats (e.g., cobbleor boulder)

0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl)Note: When mul ple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classifica on isuncertain, the score will be based on the most sensi ve, plausible habitat type.

Factor 4.2 - Mi ga on of Gear Impacts

+1 (Strong Mi ga on)—Examples include large propor on of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) withgear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor andmodifica ons shown to be effec ve at reducing damage, or an effec ve combina on of ‘moderate’mi ga on measures.

+0.5 (Moderate Mi ga on)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place tolimit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spa al footprint of damage caused from fishing.

+0.25 (Low Mi ga on)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitatsnot protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not ac vely being reduced

0 (No Mi ga on)—No effec ve measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats

Region / MethodGear Type andSubstrate

Mi ga on of GearImpacts EBFM Score

Argen na / Southwest Atlan c /Bo om trawls


0.25: MinimalMi ga on


Yellow(2.598)

27

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

5 (Very Low Concern)—Substan al efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensurefishing prac ces do not have nega ve ecological effects (e.g., large propor on of fishery area is protectedwith marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators)

4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in placeto protect the ecological role of any species that plays an excep onally large role in the ecosystem.Measures are in place to minimize poten ally nega ve ecological effect if hatchery supplementa on or fishaggrega ng devices (FADs) are used.

3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an excep onally large role in theecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of thesespecies, OR nega ve ecological effects from hatchery supplementa on or FADs are possible andmanagement is not place to mi gate these impacts

2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an excep onally large role in the ecosystem and noefforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.

1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementa on or fish aggrega ng devices (FADs) in the fisheryis having serious nega ve ecological or gene c consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascadesor other detrimental impacts to the food web.

Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

Factor 4.2 - Mi ga on of Gear Impacts


Moderate Concern

Changes were detected in the Gulf of St. George's floor, which can be a ributed to several natural andanthropogenic factors that act together. These changes are: defauna on, a high percentage of dead bivalves,development of anoxic condi ons in the bo om water, and reduc on condi ons in the sediment. Changes inshrimp habitat can determine changes in spawning and migra on of species in the area. They can also causean increase in natural mortality, leading to a crisis in the resource (Bertuche et al. 2000).

There is no specific study of the impact of the red shrimp fishery on the ocean floor (pers. comm., María EvaGóngora 2015), but it is known that the use of mobile fishing gear has become a source of concern because ofthe size of the affected fishing grounds, the modifica on of the substrate, the disturbance of benthiccommuni es, and the removal of nontarget species (Na onal Research Council 2002). According to (Na onalResearch Council 2002), a complete assessment of the ecosystem effects of trawling requires three types ofinforma on: 1) gear-specific effects on different habitat types; 2) frequency and geographic distribu on ofbo om tows (trawl fishing effort data); and 3) physical and biological characteris cs of seafloor habitats inthe fishing grounds.

The red shrimp coastal fishery occurs on so sand and muddy bo om with low impact (CeDePesca report).

The red shrimp fishery scores as "moderate" concern for gear impacts on the substrate.


Minimal Mi ga on

Most of the fishery management efforts are aimed at mi ga ng the fishery's impact on the target species, notto the benthic habitat. There are mobile and permanent closed areas that reduce the spa al extent of impactsto the seafloor. Because of the existence of some closed areas, mi ga on of gear impacts scores as "minimal."

28


Moderate Concern

Management measures are based on species rather than on the ecosystem. There do not appear to beintegrated management plans in Argen na (Kalikoski et al. 2006).

Ecosystem-based management scores as "moderate" concern because the fishery does not catch “excep onalspecies” and because scien fic assessment and management of ecosystem impacts are not yet underway.

29

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Acknowledgements

Scien fic review does not cons tute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafoodrecommenda ons, on the part of the reviewing scien sts. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for theconclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch would like to thank Alejandra Cornejo from Centro Desarrollo y Pesca Sustentable and Dr.Maria Eva Gongora from the Na onal University of Patagonia for graciously reviewing this report forscien fic accuracy.

30

References

Alejandra Cornejo, Personal Communica on, December 17, 2015

Alonso, M. K., Crespo, E. A., García, N. A., Pedraza, S. N., Mario , P. A., Vera, B. B. and Mora, N. J., 2001. Foodhabits of Dipturus chilensis (Pisces: Rajidae) off Patagonia, Argen na. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 58: 288–297.

Argen na, 2007. Pesquerías de Calamar y Langos no - Situación actual. Subsecretária de Pesca y Acuicultura

Argen na, 2014. Exportaciones e Importaciones Pesqueras – 2013 Subsecretaría de Pesca y AcuiculturaDirección de Economía Pesquera. Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca

Bertuche, D., Fischbach, C., Roux, A., Fernández, M. and Piñero, R. 2000. Langos no (Pleo cus muelleri). p.179-190. In: Bezzi, S., Akselman, R. and Boschi, E.E. (eds), Síntesis Del estado de lãs pesquerías marí masargen nas y de la Cuenca Del Plata. Años 1997-1998, com uma actualización de 1999. Mar del Plata, INIDEP.

Bezzi, S., Cañete, G., Pérez, M., Renzi, M. and Lassen, H., 1994. Report of the INIDEP Working Group onassessment of Hake (Merlucius hubbsi) north of 48ºS (Southwest Atlan c Ocean). Ins tuto Nacional deInves gación y Desarrollo Pesquero - INIDEP. 28 p.

BID, 2013. Diagnos co del Sector Pesquero y Acuícola en la Argen na. Proyecto de Desarrollo Pesquero yAcuícola Sustentable. Informe de consultoría de Ruy de Villalobos. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. 277 p.

BirdLife Interna onal 2014. Phalacrocorax atriceps. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2.<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 04 August 2015.

BirdLife Interna onal 2012. Spheniscus magellanicus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2015.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 01 September 2015.

Boersma, P. D., Rebstock, G. A. and García-Borboroglu, P., 2015. Marine protec on is needed for Magellanicpenguins in Argen na based on long-term data. Biological Conserva on 182 (2015) 197–204

Bovcon, N. D. , Góngora, M. E., Marinao, C. & González-Zevallos, D., 2013. Composición de las capturas ydescartes generados en la pesca de merluza común Merluccius hubbsi y langos no patagónico Pleo cusmuelleri: un caso de estudio en la flota fresquera de altura del Golfo San Jorge, Chubut, Argen na. Revista deBiología Marina y Oceanogra a, Vol. 48, Nº2: 303-319.

Bull, L. S., 2009. New mi ga on measures reducing seabird by-catch in trawl fisheries. F I SH and F I SHERI E S, 2009, 10, 408–427

Campagna, C., 2014. Otaria byronia. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2.<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 06 August 2015.

Cauhépé, M. E., 1999. Management of the Argen ne Hake. FINAL PROJECTS 1999. UNU-Fisheries TrainingProgramme . 38 p.

CeDePesca, 2014. Argen ne red shrimp off-shore

Cedrola, P. V., González, A. M & Pe ovello, A.D., 2005. Bycatch of skates (Elasmobranchii: Arhynchoba dae,Rajidae) in the Patagonian red shrimp fishery. Fisheries Research 71 (2005) 141–150

CEDROLA, P. V., GONZÁLEZ, A. M., CHIARAMONTE, G. E. & PETTOVELLO, A. D., 2012. Bycatch of sharks(Elasmobranchii) in the Patagonian red shrimp Pleo cus muelleri (Bate, 1888) fishery. Revista del MuseoArgen no de Ciencias Naturales, n. s. 14(2): 349-356

Chiaramonte, G.E. 2005. Schroederichthys bivius. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3.<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 19 May 2015.

Cohen, D.M., T. Inada, T. Iwamoto and N. Scialabba, 1990. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 10. Gadiform fishes ofthe world (Order Gadiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of cods, hakes, grenadiers and othergadiform fishes known to date. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(10). Rome: FAO. 442 p.

Compagno, L.J.V., 1984. FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustratedcatalogue of shark species known to date. Part 2 - Carcharhiniformes. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(4/2):251-655.Rome: FAO.

Cordo, H. D., 2006. Estructura y abundancia del stock reproductor del Abadejo (Genypterus blacodes) del marargen no em el periodo 1995-2000. INIDEP INF. TÉC. 60: 1-17

Crespi-Abril, A. C., Pedraza, S. N., García, N. A. and Crespo, E. A., 2013. Species biology of elasmobranch by-catch in bo om-trawl fishery on the northern Patagonian shelf, Argen na. Aquat Biol 19: 239–251, 2013

Crespo, E. A., Pedraza, S. N., Dans, S. L., Alonso, M. K., Reyes, L. M., García, N. A. , Coscarella, M. and Schiavini,31

A. C. M., 1997. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Highseas Fisheries onthe Marine Mammal Popula ons in theNorthernand Central Patagonian Coast. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., Vol. 22: 189–207

Dans, S. L., Alonso, M. K., Pedraza, S. N. and Crespo, E. A., 2003. INCIDENTAL CATCH OF DOLPHINS INTRAWLING FISHERIES OFF PATAGONIA, ARGENTINA: CAN POPULATIONS PERSIST? EcologicalApplica ons, 13(3), 2003, pp. 754–762

Dans, S.L., Crespo, E.A., Pedraza, S.N. and Alonso, M.K., 2004. Recovery of the South American sea lion (Otariaflavescens) popula on in northern Patagonia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aqua c Sciences, 2004,61:1681-1690, 10.1139 / f 04-105

De Carli, P., Braccalen , J. C., García-De-León, F. J. Gómez, E. P. A, 2012. LA PESQUERÍA DEL LANGOSTINOARGENTINO Pleo cus muelleri (CRUSTACEA: PENAEIDAE) EN PATAGONIA, ¿UN ÚNICO STOCK? AnalesIns tuto Patagonia (Chile), 2012. 40(2):103-112

De La Garza, J., 2014. DISTRIBUCION ESPACIAL DE LA BIOMASA Y PROCESO DE RECLUTAMIENTO DELLANGOSTINO (Pleo cus muelleri) EN SU AREA DE DISTRIBUCION PATAGONICA. RESULTADOS DE LACAMPAÑA OB-01/2014. Ins tuto Nacional de Inves gación y Desarrollo Pesquero - INIDEP. 15 p.

Domingo A., Bugoni, L., Prosdocimi, L., Miller, P., Laporta, M., Monteiro, D.S., Estrades, A. and Albareda, D.,2006. The impact generated by fisheries on Sea Turtles in the Southwestern Atlan c. WWF Progama Marinopara La noamérica y el Caribe, San José, Costa Rica.

EAYRS, S., 2007. A guide to bycatch reduc on in tropical shrimp-trawl fisheries. Food and AgriculturalOrganisa on, Rome. 110p.

Ernesto Godelman, Personal Communica on, July 12, 2016

FAO Fisheries Department (FAO- FI). Review of the state of world marine fishery resources 2011. Marineresources - Southwest Atlan c. FIRMS Reports. In: Fisheries and Resources Monitoring System (FIRMS)[online]. Rome. Updated 12 June 2013. [Cited 6 April 2015].

Fernández, M., Hernández, D. & Roux, A., 2011. Analysis of the rela onship between rela ve abundance ofmature, impregnated females of Pleo cus muelleri (Bate, 1888) (Crustacea, Decapoda) and environmentalvariables through sta s cal models. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res., 39(1): 1-15

Fishbach, C., 2013. Estadis ca de la pesquería del langos no Pleo cus muelleri en la temporada 2012. INIDEP:Ins tuto Nacional de Inves gación y Desarrollo Pesquero. 15 p.

Fordham, S., Fowler, S.L., Coelho, R., Goldman, K.J. & Francis, M. 2006. Squalus acanthias. The IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 10 April 2015.

Fowler, S.L., Cavanagh, R.D., Camhi, M., Burgess, G.H., Cailliet, G.M., Fordham, S.V., Simpfendorfer, C.A. andMusick, J.A. (comp. and ed.). 2005. Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes.Status Survey. IUCN/SSC Shark Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x + 461 pp.

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2015. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publica on. www.fishbase.org,version

GANDINI, P. A., FRERE, E., PETTOVELLO, A. D and CEDROLA, P. V., 1999. INTERACTION BETWEENMAGELLANIC PENGUINS AND SHRIMP FISHERIES IN PATAGONIA, ARGENTINA. The Condor, Vol. 101, No.4 (Nov., 1999), pp. 783-789

Glembocki, N. G.,, Williams, G. N., Góngora, M. E., Gagliardini, D. A., Orensanz, J. M., 2015. Synop coceanography of San Jorge Gulf (Argen na): A template for Patagonian red shrimp (Pleo cus muelleri) spa aldynamics. Journal of Sea Research 95 (2015) 22–35

Góngora, M. E., 2011. Dinámica y manejo de la captura incidental de peces en la pesquería del langos nopatagónico (Pleo cus muelleri)”. Tesis de Doctorado. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. 264p.

Góngora, M. E., Bovcon, N. D. & Cochia, P. D., 2009. Ic ofauna capturada incidentalmente en la pesquería delangos no patagónico Pleo cus muelleri Bate, 1888. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanogra a 44(3): 583-593

Góngora, M. E., González-Zevallos, D., Pe ovello, A. & Mendía, L., 2012. Caracterización de las principalespesquerías del golfo San Jorge Patagonia, Argen na. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res., 40(1): 1-11, 2012

González-Carman, V., Machain, N., Albareda, D., Mianzan, H. and Campagna, C., 2012. Legal and ins tu onaltools to mi gate marine turtle bycatch: Argen na as a case study. Marine Policy 36 (2012) 1265–1274

González-Zevallos, D., Yorio, P. and Svagelj W. S., 2011. Seabird a endance and incidental mortality at shrimpfisheries in Golfo San Jorge, Argen na. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 432: 125–135.

Gustavo E. Chiaramonte, Personal Communica on, April 9, 2015.32

Holthuis, L.B. 1980 FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 1. Shrimps and prawns of the world. An annotated catalogueof species of interest to fisheries. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(1):271 p. Rome: FAO.

Irusta, C. G., 2014. Evaluación del estado del effec vo norte de 41ºS de la Merluza ( Merluccius hubbsi) yes mación de la captura biológicamente aceptable para el año 2015. INIDEP INF. TÉC. 29: 1-30

Kalikoski, D., Vasconcellos, M and Pitcher, T. J., 2006. An Es ma on of Compliance of the Fisheries of Argen nawith Ar cle 7 (Fisheries Management) of the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing .

KELLEHER, K., 2005. Discards in the world´s marine fisheries – An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No.470. Rome, FAO. 131p.

Kyne ,P.M., Lamilla, J., Licandeo, R.R., Jimena San Mar n, M., Stehmann, M.F.W. & McCormack, C. 2007.Zearaja chilensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>.Downloaded on 13 April 2015.

Lasta, C. A., Ruarte, C. O. y Carozza, C. R., 2001. Flota Costera argen na: antecedentes y situación actual. Elmar Argen no y sus recursos pesqueros, 3: 89-106.

Laura Prosdocimi, Personal Communica on, March 16, 2015.

Macchi, G. J., Iorio, M. I. y Chris ansen, H., 1992. Aspectos del desove y fecundidad del Langos no Pleo cusmuelleri (BATE, 1888) (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA, SOLENOCERIDAE). Rev. Bio. Mar., Valparaíso, 27 (1): 43-58

Macchi, G. J., Iorio, M. I y Aubone, A., 1998. Es mación de la fecundidad del Langos no Argen no Pleo cusmuelleri Bate, 1888 de Patagonia (sur de Argen na). Bol. Inst. Esp. Oceanogr.14 (1 y 2): 19-29

Macchi, G. J., Leonarduzzi, E., Diaz, M. V., Renzi, M and Rodrigues, K., 2013. Maternal effects on fecundity andegg quality of the Patagonian stock of Argen ne Hake (Merluccius hubbsi). Fishery Bulle n 111(4): 325 - 326.

Marcovaldi, M. A. and Chaloupka, M., 2007. Conserva on status of the loggerhead sea turtle in Brazil: anencouraging outlook. Endang Species Res 3: 132–143, 2007

Marí, N.R. 2005. Síntesis de la información derivada de las Campañas de Evaluación Es val de EspeciesDemersales Australes, desarrolladas en el Mar Argen no, entre los 45° y 54° S, por los buques del INIDEP,durante el período 1992 al 2001. Peces car laginosos. Ins tuto Nacional de Inves gación y DesarrolloPesquero, Inf. Técn. Int. 93, Mar del Plata.

María Eva Góngora, Personal Communica on, November 30, 2015.

Marinao C. J and Yorio, P. 2011. Fishery Discards and Incidental Mortality of Seabirds A ending CoastalShrimp Trawlers at Isla Escondida, Patagonia, Argen na. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 123(4):709-719.

Marinao, C., Góngora, M. E., González-Zevallos, D. and Yorio, P., 2014. Factors affec ng Magellanic Penguinmortality at coastal trawlers in Patagonia, Argen na. Ocean & Coastal Management 93 (2014): 100 - 105

Massa, A., Mari,N., Giussi, A. & Hozbor, N. B. , 2007. Índices de abundancia de Squalus acanthias en laPlataforma Con nental Argen na. INIDEP Technical Report 6: 1–17.

Marine Turtle Specialist Group 1996. Care a care a. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2015.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>

Na onal Research Council, 2002. Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. Commi ee onEcosystem Effects of Fishing: Phase 1 -- Effects of Bo om Trawling on Seafloor Habitats, Na onal ResearchCouncil. ISBN: 0-309-50815-0, 136 pages.

Nielsen, J.G., D.M. Cohen, D.F. Markle and C.R. Robins, 1999. Ophidiiform fishes of the world (OrderOphidiiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of pearlfishes, cusk-eels, brotulas and other ophidiiformfishes known to date. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(18):178p. Rome: FAO.

Na onal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. An assessment of loggerhead sea turtles to es mate impactsof mortality reduc ons on popula on dynamics. NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Contribu on PRD-08/09-14

NOAA, 2006. NOAA Fisheries Glossary. NOAA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NMFS-F/SPO-69. NATIONALOCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION. 71 p.

NOAA, 2015. Commercial Fisheries Sta s cs. Annual Trade Data by Product, Country/Associa on

Padula, C. G., 2014. Designing Marine Protected Areas for the South American Sea Lion (Otaria byronia) in theArgen ne Patagonia. Master thesis. University of California. 157 p.

Pe ovello, A. D., 1999. By-catch in the Patagonian red shrimp (Pleo cus muelleri) fishery. Mar. Freshwater Res.,1999, 50, 123?7

33

Solapamiento trófico entre el lobo marino de un pelo Otaria flavescens y la pesquería de arrastre demersal delgolfo San Ma as, Patagonia, Argen na

Ruiz, A. E. and Mendia, L. F., 2008. Observaciones morfométricas y reproduc vas en el langos no Pleo cusmuelleri Bate, 1888 procedente de embarcaciones comerciales del puerto Rawson, Argen na. Revista deBiología Marina y Oceanogra a 43(3): 675-680

Ruiz, A.E. & Mendia, L. F., 2008.Observaciones morfométricas y reproduc vas en el langos no Pleo cusmuelleri Bate, 1888 procedente de embarcaciones comerciales del puerto Rawson, Argen na. Revista deBiología Marina y Oceanogra a 43(3): 675-680

Sánchez, R. P., 2012. Estadís cas de la pesca marina en la Argen na: evolución de los desembarques 1898-2010 / Ramiro P. Sánchez ; Gabriela Navarro ; Vera Rozycki. 1a ed. - Buenos Aires: Ministerio de Agricultura,Ganadería y Pesca, 2012. 528 p.

Schonberger, S. N & Agar, J. J., 2001. A rgen na Towards Rights-based Fisheries Management. Fisheries andAquaculture Thema c Group La n America and Caribbean Region. World Bank. 120 p.

Seafood Watch. 2013. Seafood Watch criteria for fisheries. Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch VersionJanuary 18, 2013. 82 p.

Spanjersberg, G., Moriondo, P. D., Fischbach, C. y Verón, L, 2013. Analisis del desembarque de langos no en elpuerto de Rawson. Período enero – marzo 2013. Ins tuto Nacional de Inves gación y Desarollo Pesquero -INIDEP. 8 p.

Sparre, P. and Venema, S. C., 1998. Introduc on to Tropical Fish Stock Assessment - Part 1: Manual. FAOFISHERIES TECHNICAL PAPER 306/1 Rev. 2. 407 p.

Tamini, L.L., Chiaramonte, G.E., Perez, J.E. & Cappozzo, H.L., 2006. Batoids in a coastal trawl fishery ofArgen na. Fisheries Research 77 (2006) 326–332

UNEP, 2002. Integrated Assessment of Trade Liberaliza on and Trade-Related Policies. A Country Study on theFisheries Sector in Argen na. United Na ons Publica on. 136 p.

USFDA, 2015. U.S. Food and Drug Administra on.

Villarino, M. F. and Santos, B. A., 2014. Evaluación del estado de explotación del efec vo sur 41° S de Merluza(Merluccius hubbsi) y es mación de la captura biologicamente aceptable para 2015. Ins tuto Nacional deInves gación y Desarrollo Pesquero, Inf. Técn. Int. 30, Mar del Plata.

Villarino, M. F., Santos, B. A. y Renzi, M. A., 2012. EVALUACIÓN DEL ESTADO DE EXPLOTACIÓN DELEFECTIVO SUR DE 41°S DE LA MERLUZA (Merluccius hubbsi) Y ESTIMACIÓN DE LA CAPTURABIOLÓGICAMENTE ACEPTABLE PARA 2013. Informe Oficial Tecnico. Ins tuto Nacional de Inves gación yDesarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP). 29p.

WAGNER, E. L AND BOERSMA, P. D., 2011. EFFECTS OF FISHERIES ON SEABIRD COMMUNITY ECOLOGY.Reviews in fisheries science vol. 19, 3. 12p.

Yorio P., Copello, S., Kuba, L., GosztonyI, A. and Quintana, F., 2010. Diet of Imperial Cormorants Phalacrocoraxatriceps Breeding at Central Patagonia, Argen na. Waterbirds 33(1): 70-78

34

Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species

Argen ne hake



Medium

The FishBase score for Argen ne hake is 58 of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015), which corresponds to highvulnerability. But using the Seafood Watch produc vity scoring analysis, Argen ne hake has a moderateinherent vulnerability species (2.3) because of a combina on of the factors presented in the table below:

References used in Seafood Watch produc vity scoring analysis: (Bezzi et al 1994) (Cauhépé 1999) (Macchi etal. 2013).

Life historya ribute Hake (Merluccius hubbsi)

Score =1

Score =2 Score = 3 Sum

Average age atmaturity < 5 yrs 3

Averagemaximum age

10–25yrs 2

Fecundity NO N/A N/A N/A

Averagemaximum size < 100 cm 3

Average sizeat maturity

40–200cm 2

Reproduc vestrategy

Broadcastspawner 3

Trophic level > 3.25 1

Densitydependence N/A N/A N/A N/A

Score 2.3

Low Concern

Two stocks are defined for common hake in Argen ne waters, based on biological characteris cs: north of41°S (Bonaerense) and south of 41°S (Patagónico) (Góngora et al 2012).

The total biomass es mated in 2013 (1,043,000 t) south of 41°S, the main red shrimp fishing area, wasapproximately 19% higher than in 2012, mainly because of the presence of strong year classes in 2010 and2011, which provided a 40% increase in reproduc ve biomass. The most recent assessment shows a 40%

35





increase in spawning stock biomass in 2013 compared with 2012 (Villarino & Santos 2014).

Based on state test results of exploita on of hake south of 41°S, and with intent to capitalize on the stabilityof the reproduc ve biomass and the increased total biomass es mated in 2013, it is recommended to keepthe 2015 maximum allowable catch at the same level established for 2014. This is recommended in order toreach 600,000 t in the medium term and to maintain a propor on of 18% of large individuals in the breedingpopula on (Villarino & Santos 2014).

Biomass is above the limit reference point and may be es mated to be above a target reference point, so thisfactor can be considered "low" concern.

Moderate Concern

Argen ne hake is captured in a directed fishery and as bycatch in the red shrimp fishery south of 41°S(Bovcon et al. 2013)(Villarino & Santos 2014). In the Gulf of St. George (45°S, 65°W), red shrimp andArgen ne hake share the same fishing grounds (Pe ovello 1999), and this region is characterized ascontaining reproduc on and recruitment concentra on sites for hake (Villarino et al. 2012). To iden fy sharksspecies in the bycatch of the Patagonian red shrimp fishery, (Cedrola et al. 2012) found the par cipa on ofthe hake to be 34.5% of the total catch.

For the red shrimp coastal fishery, hake is the main bycatch (less than 0.5% of the total catch). Its capture waslow, with high variability, and presented a growing tendency toward the end of the fishing season (CeDePesca2014).

The 2013 hake fishing mortality in the directed fishery and the red shrimp fishery was es mated at 1,043,000t, represen ng a 19% increase from 2012 (Villarino & Santos 2014). The red shrimp fishery is a substan alcontributor to hake fishing mortality (Góngora et al. 2012). Considering the total fishing mortality on thishake stock, along with low recruitment and low spawning stock biomass, models suggest that this stock maybe in a state of recruitment overfishing (Irusta 2014).

Based on this scenario, the fishing mortality may or may not be at or below a sustainable level that will allowthe popula on to maintain its current level or to rebuild if depleted. Management is in place, but thecontribu on to fishing mortality from the shrimp fishery is high, warran ng a score of "moderate" concern forfishing mortality for Argen ne hake.

40-60%




For the red shrimp coastal fishery, discarding occurs in over 90% of trips (CeDePesca report).36



Magellanic penguin





High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds grow slowly, reach sexual maturityat a late age, and produce few young. These life history characteris cs suggest a high level of inherentvulnerability to fishing. For seabirds, the effects of fisheries can be observed in a number of ways: compe onfor prey, provisioning from fisheries via discards, and incidental mortality due to bycatch (Wagner andBoersma 2011).

Magellanic penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus) is listed as "Near Threatened" by the IUCN. At itslargest colony in Punta Tombo, Chubut, Argen na, ac ve nests declined > 30% over 30 years. Reproduc vesuccess is low, many penguins forage far from the colony, and starva on (the major cause of chick death) kills39% of chicks on average each year (Boersma et al. 2015).

Commercial fisheries throughout the coastal zone of Patagonia have drama cally increased in the last twodecades, and are based mainly on two target species, Argen ne hake (Merluccius hubbsi) and Argen ne redshrimp (Pleo cus muelleri) (Yorio et al. 2010). Seabirds are a racted to trawl vessels to make use of fisherywaste, and this a rac on o en results in increased incidental mortality (González-Zevallos et al 2011).

High Concern

The Magellanic penguin is listed as "Near Threatened" by IUCN, jus fying the score of "high" concern forabundance. The popula on is large and widespread (es mated at 1.3 million pairs, with 950,000 along theArgen nian coast), but it is decreasing (BirdLife Interna onal 2012).

Moderate Concern

The seabird species with the highest mortality in the commercial red shrimp fishery was the Magellanicpenguin, followed by the sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus), imperial shag (Phalacrocorax atriceps), andblack-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris). Penguins were affected by the shrimp fishery during theaustral summer. Es ma ons of mortality rates showed that 0.33% of the breeding popula on at the Gulf ofSt. George is incidentally killed by the shrimp trawl fishery every summer (Gandini et al. 1999). Incidentalcapture of Magellanic penguin in coastal trawlers in Patagonia appears to be highly variable and rela vely low(Marinao et al. 2014).

Because the Magellanic penguin represents a non-target species in which the fishery contribu on to mortalitymay be low or unknown, but the popula on may be depleted, the fishing mortality for this species isconsidered "moderate" concern"

40-60%37





Imperial shag








High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds grow slowly, reach sexual maturityat a late age, and produce few young. These life history characteris cs suggest a high level of inherentvulnerability to fishing. For seabirds, the effects of fisheries can be observed in a number of ways: compe onfor prey, provisioning from fisheries via discards, and incidental mortality due to bycatch (Wagner andBoersma 2011).

Commercial fisheries throughout the coastal zone of Patagonia have drama cally increased in the last twodecades, and are based mainly on two target species, Argen ne hake (Merluccius hubbsi) and Argen ne redshrimp (Pleo cus muelleri). Imperial cormorant foraging distribu on o en overlaps with commercial fisheries,and birds regularly gather near trawl vessels to take advantage of fisheries discards (Yorio et al 2010); thisa rac on o en results in increased incidental mortality (González-Zevallos et al 2011).

Low Concern

The abundance of this species has not been quan fied, but is evaluated as "Least Concern" under IUCNbecause it is wide ranging and because it is thought that the popula on is not decreasing at a rate that wouldclassify it as "Vulnerable" (Birdlife Interna onal 2014). Because of the IUCN evalua on, abundance scores as"low" concern.

Low Concern

With trawls, nega ve interac ons fall into two categories: seabirds can be struck by or become entangled inwarp cables, and they can drown in trawl nets (Bull 2009). Incidental mortality in nets (in the ar sanal fleet)was associated with diving species such as Magellanic penguin and imperial shag, most likely because thesespecies dive to take prey directly from the net during haulback, thus increasing their chances of becomingentangled (Marinao and Yorio 2011). The mortality decreased with the distance to the coast (González-Zevallos et al. 2011).

Since the imperial shag represents a non-target species in which the fishery contribu on to mortality may be38





South American sea lion




low or unknown, the fishing mortality for this species is considered "low" concern.

40-60%





High

Seafood Watch considers all marine mammals to have a high vulnerability to fishing pressure (Seafood Watch2013).

High Concern

IUCN provides a global popula on es mate of over 250,000 South American sea lions, with no less than100,000 in Argen na (Campagna 2014). A 2004 paper cites an increase in this species' abundance in northernArgen ne Patagonia, and decreases in its abundance in Uruguay and Chile (Dans et al. 2004). Because of thehigh inherent vulnerability of this species and because it is unknown whether this popula on abundance is ata healthy level, abundance scores as "high" concern.

Moderate Concern

Although there are no recent references, the species interacts regularly with fisheries that use a variety offishing gear and that target coastal and pelagic species. During the 1990s, mortality in the fisheries of thePatagonian shelf varied from 150-600 sea lions per year, represen ng between 1% and 2% of thetotal popula on in the area, and males seemed to be the most affected group (Crespo et al. 1997).

Intensive trawl fishing for several species in the coastal waters of the southwestern South Atlan c has beenimplicated in a severe decline of sea lions in the Falkland-Malvinas Islands, where the popula on has fallen

39






Loggerhead turtle



from 30,000 in the 1960s to approximately 15,000 in the 1980s, and possibly to as low as 3,000 in the 1990s(Campagna 2014).

Fishing mortality for this species scores as "moderate" concern because the fishery's contribu on to fishingmortality is unknown, the popula on may be depleted, and the suscep bility to fishery is moderate to high.

40-60%





High

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their lifehistory characteris cs that include being long-lived, a aining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a lowreproduc ve rate (Seafood Watch 2013).

The life cycles of sea turtles are long and complex. Turtles occupy various ecosystems (nes ng beaches,coastal, neri c and oceanic zones, as well as pelagic and demersal areas) throughout their life mes, spending

me in various Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and interna onal waters. The five species that inhabit theSouthwestern Atlan c Ocean (SWA) region perform vast feeding and reproduc ve migra ons, travelingthrough areas where many different fishing fleets operate. Therefore, sea turtles in the SWA interact withvirtually all fisheries (Domingo et al. 2006).

Very High Concern

The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtle as "Endangered" in1996 (MTSG 1996), although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated. Loggerhead is listed onAppendix 1 of CITES. Popula ons of nes ng turtles in Brazil (South Atlan c) increased between 1988 and2004 (NMFS 2009), following the cessa on of egg and turtle harves ng in the 1980s (Marcovaldi andChaloupka 2007). It is unclear if this trend exists throughout the region. This is scored as “very high” concern.

40





Low Concern

There is li le informa on about loggerhead turtle capture by the red shrimp fishery, nor is there an official seaturtle monitoring program in Argen na (pers. comm., Laura Prosdocimi 2015). The popula on is depleted, soit is unlikely that loggerhead turtle would encounter this gear (due to the low number of these turtles in thearea); but if it were encountered, suscep bility would be high. There were no reports of turtle catch in theshrimp fishery from a program of observers to the Board of Chubut Province (pers. comm., María EvaGóngora 2015).

Using the SFW unknown bycatch matrix, loggerhead captured by bo om trawl (coldwater shrimp) scores as"low" concern for fishing mortality.

40-60%





41




argenne red shrimp - seafood watch · argenne red shrimp pleocus muelleri argen na/southwest atlan...

Documents