Brazilian Sardinella Brazil, Southwest Atlantic Purse Seines

Sardinella brasiliensis

Brazil, Southwest Atlantic

Purse seines

June 14, 2018 Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF3 Table of Contents

About...... Seafood...... Watch ...... 3......

Guiding...... Principles ...... 4......

Summary...... 5......

Final...... Seafood...... Recommendations ...... 6......

Introduction...... 7......

Assessment...... 10......

Criterion...... 1: . . . Impacts...... on . . . the. . . . . Species...... Under...... Assessment...... 10 ......

Criterion...... 2: . . . Impacts...... on . . . Other...... Species...... 12 ......

Criterion...... 3: . . . Management...... Effectiveness ...... 20 ......

Criterion...... 4: . . . Impacts...... on . . . the. . . . . Habitat...... and . . . . . Ecosystem...... 23 ......

Acknowledgements...... 26......

References...... 27......

Appendix...... A:. . . . Extra...... By . . . . Catch...... Species ...... 31......

2 About Seafood Watch

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Watch Assessment. Each assessment synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” This ethic is operationalized in the Seafood Watch standards, available on our website here. In producing the assessments, Seafood Watch seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying assessments will be updated to reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Watch assessments in any way they find useful.

3 Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems.

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that fisheries must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program (these are explained further in the Seafood Watch Standard for Fisheries):

Follow the principles of ecosystem-based fisheries management. Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant. Fish all affected stocks at sustainable levels. Minimize bycatch. Have no more than a negligible impact on any threatened, endangered or protected species. Managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all affected species. Avoid negative impacts on the structure, function or associated biota of aquatic habitats where fishing occurs. Maintain the trophic role of all aquatic life. Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophic cascades, or phase shifts. Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect the diversity, abundance, productivity, or genetic integrity of wild stocks.

These guiding principles are operationalized in the four criteria in this standard. Each criterion includes:

Factors to evaluate and score Guidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and online guide:

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

Good Alternative/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 marine life or the environment.

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

4 Summary

This report addresses the Brazilian sardinella ( Sardinella brasiliensis ) targeted by the Brazilian purse seine fishery in the southeast-south region of Brazil. This is the most iconic fishery in Brazil; it has been facing a severe decline in species abundance and now displays a multi-specific characteristic.

Brazilian sardinella has a management plan that was published in 2011, and is one of the few target species to have a management plan in the country. Although the document involved several stakeholders in the process, including a working group that formulated several actions in order to recover the species stock, little was made since its publication. Additionally, most of the information used in the management plan was already outdated upon its publication, and much less data has been produced since then. The recommendation of the species is red (“avoid”), mainly because, despite low inherent vulnerability, the biomass is depleted, overfishing has been occurring for decades, and lack of recent statistics does not support recovery.

After continuous stock declines and the implementation of closing seasons for Brazilian sardinella, the purse seine fishery started to increment their income initially with secondary species (former bycatch species, retained). Eight species (Atlantic thread herring, false pilchard, Atlantic bumper, rough scad, liza, chub mackerel, Atlantic moonfish, and Atlantic cutlassfish) were selected for Criterion 2. Selection is based on their importance to the purse seine fishery targeting Brazilian sardinella, with the addition of whitemouth drummer, a species still reported to be caught in this fishery despite recommendations against this practice. Whitemouth drummer limited the score for Criterion 2 due to its already severe overfished status caused by other fisheries.

Management measures for Brazilian sardinella include legislation regarding closing seasons (to prevent fishing when the species is spawning), minimal size, closed areas, and licensing. Despite this legislation, the management plan (focusing on stock recovery) has not been fully implemented yet. This means that the fishery still lacks updates for stock assessments, quota system, strategies to avoid IUU fishery of the species, and strategies to protect the young stock, among others. Moreover, although the fishery is now considered to be multi-specific, management measures are focused in the Brazilian sardinella alone and, while some accessory species have specific legislation regarding their catches, many important species for this fishery remain without regulations.

Purse seine gear does not impact ocean habitats and ecosystems.

The purse seine fishery targeting Brazilian sardinella (and its accessory species) is rated "red" or "avoid."

5 Final Seafood Recommendations

CRITERION 2: CRITERION 1: IMPACTS ON CRITERION 3: CRITERION 4: IMPACTS ON OTHER MANAGEMENT HABITAT AND OVERALL SPECIES/FISHERY THE SPECIES SPECIES EFFECTIVENESS ECOSYSTEM RECOMMENDATION

Brazilian sardinella Red (1.00) Red (1.00) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (1.40) Brazil Southwest Atlantic, Purse seines

Scoring Guide Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations 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 Critical scores Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical 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 Critical scores.

2 Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

6 Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation This report addresses the Brazilian sardinella (Sardinella brasiliensis) targeted by the Brazilian purse seine fishery in the southeast-south region of Brazil. This is the most iconic fishery in Brazil; it has been facing a severe decline in species abundance and now reflects a multi-specific fishery.

Species Overview Brazilian sardinella belongs in the family Clupeidae, and is geographically isolated from other Sardinella species in the Atlantic Ocean (Cergole & Dias Neto 2011). Found in coastal waters, often forming compact schools that are heavily influenced by oceanographic conditions (Moraes 2012). A molecular analysis of mitochondrial DNA comparing specimens collected in several regions of occurrence of individuals of the genus Sardinella, it was verified that S. brasiliensis is co-specific of S. aurita, which is represented by genetically identifiable populations on the west coast of the South Atlantic (Tringali and Wilson Jr. 1993). However, to date, the nomenclature S. brasiliensis is used to identify specimens distributed in the Southeastern Brazilian coast from Cape São Tomé/RJ to Cape Santa Marta Grande/SC. Thus, the taxonomic status is not perfectly clear (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). Brazilian sardinella is a coastal, pelagic species, preferring shallow and warm (22 °C or warmer) waters, and is highly migratory. They are found in large, compact schools, swimming near the surface. Brazilian sardinella filters the zooplankton (mainly copepods) from which it feeds. Juveniles live in nursery areas, such as mangroves, and feed on phytoplankton. Reproduction occurs throughout the year, and in some regions there are two spawning periods. The spawning seasons are protected in Brazil through specific legislation (closed seasons) (Szpilman 2000). Brazilian sardinella is the main small-pelagic species exploited in Brazil, accounting for between 10% and 15% of the annual total of marine living resources caught in national waters (Brazil 2010) (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). Its capture is carried out by the purse seine trawler fleet that operates between Cape São Tomé (22 °S) and Cape Santa Marta (28 °S to 29 °S) (Cergole & Dias Neto 2011), in the region called the Southeast Brazilian Continental Platform. Part of the production is marketed fresh, constituting a great source of cheap protein source in several regions. The other part is intended for the canning industry and the manufacture of fish meal. They are also used as bait in sportfishing (Moraes 2012).

Production Statistics The Brazilian sardinella fishery gained industrial proportions in the 1960s, reaching a record production of 228,000 tons (T) in 1973 (Moraes 2012). Since then, the production history is characterized by large oscillations, including two collapses, in the late 80's (32,000 T) and 90 (17,000 T), and some relative recoveries, in addition to a clear downward trend over the last 30 years (Figure 1 [IMG-8750: Brazilian sardinella's total annual catch between 1964 and 2010]). In the last decade, there was a slight recovery characterized by a stabilization of production around 50,000 T annually between 2004 and 2007, followed by an increase to values over 70,000 T in the biennium 2008 to 2009 (Moraes 2012) (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). In the following biennium, a new fall signaled the possibility of a new collapse (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). Despite being the main target for purse seine fisheries

7 Figure 1 Purse-seine fleet density targeting Brazilian sardinella and accessory species in the South / Southeast region in 2010. Source: Brasil 2010

, more species began to be caught in these fisheries starting in the 1990's, as a response to Brazilian sardinella's stock decline (Dias 2012). Some other species now present great importance for this fleet, most of which are being captured during closing seasons for the Brazilian sardinella; the composition of species may vary from year to year, since most of them are also targeted in other fisheries (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011) (Dias 2012). In 2017, the main company involved in the exploration and trade of Brazilian sardinella closed temporarily due to lack of fish (pers. comm., R. Barreto 2017).

Importance to the US/North American market. According to US trade data, imports of Sardinella spp. from Brazil to the U.S. market are low. Despite the fact that available information is not species specific (i.e., it includes sardines and sardinella species in the same

8 pool), available data does not include recent years

Figure 2 Total sardines/sardinella imports from Brazil, from 2000-2017. Source: NMFS 2018.

. Sardines are exported canned (in oil or not, skinned or not) and also frozen (NMFS 2018). In Brazil, data of exported sardines shows that the US market corresponds to less than 5% of the sardines/sardinella exported worldwide (Alice Web 2017).

Common and market names. Brazilian sardinella may be commonly referred to as orangespot sardine in the US and Puerto Rico (Froese and Pauly 2017)

Primary product forms Brazilian sardinella is sold whole, fresh/chilled, or frozen (US Census Bureau 2017), and mainly in canned form (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011)

9 Assessment

This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Standard for Fisheries, available at www.seafoodwatch.org. The specific standard used is referenced on the title page of all Seafood Watch assessments.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under Assessment

This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. When abundance is unknown, abundance is scored based on the species’ inherent vulnerability, which is calculated using a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating 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

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical

Guiding Principles Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant. Fish all affected stocks at sustainable level.

Criterion 1 Summary BRAZILIAN SARDINELLA Region | Method Abundance Fishing Mortality Score Brazil/Southwest Atlantic 1.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.00) | Purse seines

Criterion 1 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 1.1 - Abundance Goal: Stock abundance and size structure of native species is maintained at a level that does not impair recruitment or productivity.

5 (Very Low Concern) — Strong evidence exists that the population is above an appropriate target abundance level (given the species’ ecological role), or near virgin biomass. 3.67 (Low Concern) — Population may be below target abundance level, but is at least 75% of the target level, OR data-limited assessments suggest population is healthy and species is not highly vulnerable. 2.33 (Moderate Concern) — Population is not overfished but may be below 75% of the target abundance level, OR abundance is unknown and the species is not highly vulnerable. 1 (High Concern) — Population is considered overfished/depleted, a species of concern, threatened or endangered, OR abundance is unknown and species is highly vulnerable.

10 Factor 1.2 - Fishing Mortality

Goal: Fishing mortality is appropriate for current state of the stock.

5 (Low Concern) — Probable (>50%) that fishing mortality from all sources is at or below a sustainable level, given the species ecological role, OR fishery does not target species and fishing mortality is low enough to not adversely affect its population. 3 (Moderate Concern) — Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality relative to a sustainable level is uncertain. 1 (High Concern) — Probable that fishing mortality from all source is above a sustainable level.

BRAZILIAN SARDINELLA Factor 1.1 - Abundance

BRAZIL/SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES High Concern The most recent assessment of Brazilian sardinella was published in 2011; however, most of the data included in the assessment is from over 20 years ago; The spawning stock biomass in 1997 was SSB1997 = 131,000 T (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). More recently (2008 to 2010), hydroacoustic surveys showed a critical condition of the stock with SSB2010 = 62,569 T (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). Stock status is rated as "high" concern because, despite the low inherent vulnerability (score = 23, (Froese and Pauly 2017)), the biomass is depleted and there hasn't been a national survey since 2010 (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011).

Factor 1.2 - Fishing Mortality

BRAZIL/SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES High Concern The latest assessment of Brazilian sardinella indicates that fishing mortality had been increasing since the 70's, reaching rates as high as F = 3.3 (age 1) (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). The latest reported rate is of F = 2.001 (age 1, 1997) (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). There are no recent estimates of fishing mortality for the species; therefore, it is rated as a "high" concern because overfishing has been occurring for decades, and existing mitigating actions and lack of recent statistics does not support recovery.

11 Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species

All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated under Criterion 2. Seafood Watch defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. Species are evaluated using the same guidelines as in Criterion 1. When information on other species caught in the fishery is unavailable, the fishery’s potential impacts on other species is scored according to the Unknown Bycatch Matrices, which are based on a synthesis of peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion on the bycatch impacts of each gear type. The fishery is also scored for the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard/bait score. The Criterion 2 rating 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

Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Crtitical

Guiding Principles Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant. Fish all affected stocks at sustainable level. Minimize bycatch.

Criterion 2 Summary Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section; a full list and assessment of the main species can be found in Appendix A.

BRAZILIAN SARDINELLA - BRAZIL/SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC - PURSE SEINES Subscore: 1.00 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.00 Species Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Whitemouth drummer 1.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Atlantic chub mackerel 1.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.00) Atlantic thread herring 2.33:Moderate Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.53) Atlantic bumper 2.33:Moderate Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.53) False pilchard 2.33:Moderate Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.53) Liza 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.73) Sharks 1.00:High Concern 5.00:Low Concern Yellow (2.24) Rough scad 2.33:Moderate Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Yellow (2.64) Atlantic moonfish 2.33:Moderate Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Yellow (2.64) Atlantic cutlassfish 2.33:Moderate Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Yellow (2.64)

12 Species assessed under Criterion 2 were selected for being important components in the Brazilian sardinella fishery, particularly in the past decades after continuous stock declines and implementation of closing seasons for Brazilian sardinella (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). With the establishment of closing seasons for Brazilian sardinella, the purse seine fishery started to increment their income with these initially secondary species. However, species composition may vary from year to year based on a given species' stock fluctuations (which may also be under the influence of other fisheries) (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011) (Dias 2012). Because there are no recent national data on the main species that are captured in the Brazilian sardinella fishery, species under Criterion 2 were selected based on the management plan for the Brazilian sardinella (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011), as well as on published reports and studies published encompassing a smaller range of the fishery (e.g., state-level fishery statistics) (Magro et al. 2000) (Cergole et al. 2005) (CEPERG 2011) (CEPERG 2010) (CEPERG 2009) (CEPERG 2008) (UNIVALI 2008) (UNIVALI 2009) (UNIVALI 2010) (UNIVALI 2011) (UNIVALI 2012) (FIPERJ 2011) (FIPERJ 2012) (FIPERJ 2013) (FIPERJ 2014)(FIPERJ 2015) (Petermann 2015) (IPSP 2017).

Based on the description above, species considered in Criterion 2 included: Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum—which is now a significant target to supply the canned sardine industry in Brazil (Cergole et al. 2005)), false pilchard (Harengula clupeola), Atlantic bumper (Chloroscombrus chrysurus), rough scad (Trachurus lathami), liza (Mugil liza), chub mackerel (Scomber colias), Atlantic moonfish (Selene setapinnis), and Atlantic cutlassfish (Trichiurus lepturus). Although whitemouth drummer (Micropogonias furnieri) is considered to be overfished since the 1990's (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011) and included in fishing restrictive legislation since 2004 (Instrução Normativa MMA n º5, de 21 de maio de 2004), it is still commonly captured (illegally) in purse seines targeting Brazilian sardinella, particularly in the state of Rio de Janeiro, and was also included under Criterion 2.

Most of these species lack specific regulations (with the exception of liza (Brazil 2015) and whitemouth drummer (Haimovici et al. 2016), as well as minimum size limits for Atlantic thread herring and Atlantic bumper (Petermann 2015). Also, because the management plan for Brazilian sardinella does not consider managing such species, stocks statuses are not clear for these species, and a multi-species model management for the purse seine fleet is therefore highly recommended (Petermann 2015) (Petermann and Schwingel 2016).

Shark bycatch was also included in this assessment, but there is not enough information about the impact of this fishery on the species. However, it is known that most shark species within the range where purse seine fishery occurs are included in the National Red List as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable (Brazil 2014) (CEPSUL 2016).

For the purse seine fishery in the southeast-south region in Brazil, whitemouth drummer limits the score for Criterion 2 due to its already severe overfished status caused by other fisheries.

Criterion 2 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 2.1 - Abundance (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality (same as Factor 1.2 above)

WHITEMOUTH DRUMMER Factor 2.1 - Abundance

13 BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES

High Concern An independent study published in 2016 corroborates previous suggestions regarding the existence of two independent stocks in southeastern and southern Brazil, also indicating some degree of mixture between fishes spawning along southern Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina (Haimovici et al. 2016). Although the species has been considered to be overfished since the 1990's (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011), and included in fishing restrictive legislation since 2004 (Instrução Normativa MMA n º5, de 21 de maio de 2004), the whitemouth drummer is still commonly captured (illegally) in purse seines targeting Brazilian sardinella, particularly in the state of Rio de Janeiro (FIPERJ 2013). The species is more commonly targeted by artisanal fisheries using gillnets, otter trawls, and also industrial pair trawlers, otter trawlers, double-rig trawlers and bottom gillnetters that operate on the shelf (Vasconcellos and Haimovici 2006). The last available production model states that the species biomass is at 60% of BMSY (Vasconcellos and Haimovici 2006). The abundance for whitemouth drummer is deemed "high" concern because the stock is considered to have been overfished for decades. Justification:

Figure 3 Estimated parameters for Whitemouth drummer. Both F and B indicates overfished status. For more details, check Haimovici et al. 2006.

14 Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES High Concern Whitemouth drummer is a target species in several fisheries, both artisanal and industrial in the Southern coast of Brazil (Vasconcellos and Haimovici 2006). The latest available estimate for fishing mortality for this species is approximately 2 and 6 times the FMSY , indicating heavy overfishing (Vasconcellos and Haimovici 2006). The species is not recommended to be targeted in the Brazilian sardinella's fishery (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011), but it is an evident component in such catches, particularly in the state of Rio de Janeiro (FIPERJ 2013) (see figures). Because fishing mortality is above the FMSY , we deem this factor a "high" concern. Justification:

Figure 4 Landings information of whitemouth drummer from the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS), Santa Catarina (SC), São Paulo (SP) and Rio de Janeiro (RJ). *Note: data from RJ do not separate landing data by gear. Source: CEPERG 2008, CEPERG 2009, CEPERG 2010, CEPERG 2011, UNIVALI 2008, UNIVALI 2009, UNIVALI 2010, UNIVALI 2011, UNIVALI 2012, FIPERJ 2011, FIPERJ 2012, FIPERJ 2013, FIPERJ 2014, FIPERJ 2015, IPSP 2017.

Factor 2.3 - Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use Goal: Fishery optimizes the utilization of marine and freshwater resources by minimizing post-harvest loss. For fisheries that use bait, bait is used efficiently.

Scoring Guidelines: The discard rate is the sum of all dead discards (i.e. non-retained catch) plus bait use divided by the total retained catch.

RATIO OF BAIT + DISCARDS/LANDINGS FACTOR 2.3 SCORE <100% 1 >=100 0.75

15 BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES < 100% With the decline of Brazilian sardinella population over the past decades, the usual bycatch species (not limited to, but mostly Atlantic thread herring, Atlantic cutlassfish, Atlantic moonfish, Atlantic bumper, chub mackerel, rough scad, whitemouth drummer) are kept and sold. This is most common when the season is weak for Brazilian sardinella and the bycatch is sold to cover expenses within the fishery (pers. comm., Cergole 2015).

ATLANTIC CHUB MACKEREL Factor 2.1 - Abundance

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES High Concern Chub mackerel is one of the most significant components in the Brazilian sardinella's purse seine fishery, along with Atlantic thread herring and Atlantic bumper (Petermann and Schwingel 2016). This species is often mistaken for the Pacific chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), which made some available information misleading (Collette et al. 2011). Currently, the accepted species for the Atlantic ocean is Scomber colias (Gmelin, 1789) (Eschmeyer et al. 2018). The species is listed as "Least Concern" by IUCN, since it is considered "near threatened" regionally in the Mediterranean (Collette et al. 2011). Additionally, there is evidence that undersized individuals of chub mackerel are caught because of spatial overlap with Brazilian sardinella (Simãozinho 2011). A formal stock assessment and abundance data are not available for chub mackerel in the country. For this reason, a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) was used for the species. Some of the species information required for the PSA was unavailable. The PSA score equals 3.3227, so the species is deemed to have high vulnerability. Detailed scoring of each attribute is shown below. Chub mackerel is highly vulnerable (according to the PSA analysis) and because the information used in the PSA came from studies performed in Brazil, the IUCN's "Least Concern" status was overruled by the PSA score. Therefore, abundance is scored as “high” concern.

Score (1 = low risk, 2 = Productivity Relevant Information medium risk, 3 Attributes = high risk) Average age at 1 year (Magro et al. 2000) 1 Maturity Average 12 years (Magro et al. 2000) 2 maximum age Fecundity n/a n/a

16 Average maximum 45 cm (Magro et al. 2000) 1 size (fish only) Average size at maturity (fish 17.2 cm (Magro et al. 2000) 1 only) Reproductive Broadcast spawner (Froese and Pauly 2017) 1 strategy Trophic level 3.4 (Froese and Pauly 2017) 3 This species is a coastal pelagical species, also occurring over the Habitat quality 1 continental slope (Collette et al. 2011) Productivity 1.4285 score

Score (1 = low risk, 2 Susceptibility Relevant Information = Attribute medium risk, 3 = high Risk) Areal overlap (Considers all Relevant information is unknown; default value is used 3 Fisheries) Vertical overlap Relevant information is unknown; default value is used 3 (Considers all Fisheries) Selectivity of fishery Juveniles are thought to concentrate in the same areas where purse seine fishery (Specific to targeting Brazilian sardinella takes place (along the entire Southeast-South 3 fishery region). Studies on biological parameters usually miss younger individuals under because of the purse seine fishery's pressure over them (Simãozinho 2011). assessment) Post-capture mortality (Specific to All catch is retained (Cergole and Dias 2011) 3 fishery under assessment)

17 Susceptibility 3 score

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES High Concern Current F estimates are unknown for chub mackerel. However, landings data from recent assessments indicates oscillating numbers (see figure below). Because chub mackerel is a forage species and this fishery does not have a precautionary strategy targeting dependent predators, this factor is deemed as "high" concern. Justification:

Figure 5 Landings information of chub mackerel from the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS), Santa Catarina (SC), São Paulo (SP) and Rio de Janeiro (RJ). *Note: data from RJ do not separate landing data by gear. Source: CEPERG 2009, CEPERG 2011, UNIVALI 2008, UNIVALI 2009, UNIVALI 2010, UNIVALI 2011, UNIVALI 2012, FIPERJ 2011, FIPERJ 2012, FIPERJ 2013, FIPERJ 2014, FIPERJ 2015, IPSP 2017.

Scoring Guidelines: The discard rate is the sum of all dead discards (i.e. non-retained catch) plus bait use divided by the total retained catch.

18 RATIO OF BAIT + DISCARDS/LANDINGS FACTOR 2.3 SCORE <100% 1 >=100 0.75

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES < 100% With the decline of Brazilian sardinella population over the past decades, the usual bycatch species (not limited to, but mostly Atlantic thread herring, Atlantic cutlassfish, Atlantic moonfish, Atlantic bumper, chub mackerel, rough scad, whitemouth drummer) are kept and sold. This is most common when the season is weak for Brazilian sardinella and the bycatch is sold to cover expenses within the fishery (pers. comm., Cergole 2015).

19 Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

Five factors are evaluated in Criterion 3: Management Strategy and Implementation, Bycatch Strategy, Scientific Research/Monitoring, Enforcement of Regulations, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is scored as either ‘highly effective’, ‘moderately effective’, ‘ineffective,’ or ‘critical’. The final Criterion 3 score is determined as follows:

5 (Very Low Concern) — Meets the standards of ‘highly effective’ for all five factors considered. 4 (Low Concern) — Meets the standards of ‘highly effective’ for ‘management strategy and implementation‘ and at least ‘moderately effective’ for all other factors. 3 (Moderate Concern) — Meets the standards for at least ‘moderately effective’ for all five factors. 2 (High Concern) — At a minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy and Implementation and Bycatch Strategy, but at least one other factor is rated ‘ineffective.’ 1 (Very High Concern) — Management Strategy and Implementation and/or Bycatch Management are ‘ineffective.’ 0 (Critical) — Management Strategy and Implementation is ‘critical’.

The Criterion 3 rating 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

Rating is Critical if Management Strategy and Implementation is Critical.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE The fishery is managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all impacted species.

Criterion 3 Summary

Management Bycatch Research and Stakeholder Fishery Strategy Strategy Monitoring Enforcement Inclusion Score Fishery 1: Brazil / Ineffective Moderately NA NA NA Red Southwest Atlantic | Effective (1.00) Purse seines

Criterion 3 Assessment Factor 3.1 - Management Strategy and Implementation Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? Do manages follow scientific advice? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must be appropriately defined management goals, precautionary policies that are based on scientific advice, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Ineffective

20 In the Brazilian sardinella management plan, it is concluded that “the situation of the Southeast-South purse- seine fleet can be considered precarious, because its survival depends on: a) a depleted resource (Brazilian sardinella); b) other small pelagic species with no potential of providing enough biomass and profitability to support the fishery; c) seasonal occurrences, such as liza, which is also subject to unpredictable variations in their abundance; d) for some time, in the recent past, the fishery also depended on the whitemouth drummer, which should not and could not have been the target for this fishery, because it is also targeted by other fleets, and is also under controlled effort and overfishing status” (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). The Brazilian sardinella management plan, which was published in 2011, states that the plan is "adequate to Brazilian sardinella's current overfished status" (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). The Brazilian sardinella fishery currently has legislation regarding closed seasons (to prevent fishing when the species is spawning), minimal size, closed areas, and licensing, but lacks specific strategies to maintain the stocks of all other species that are now part of this fishery (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). The only state where closed season is fully enforced is São Paulo (pers. comm., A. Olinto 2017). Despite this legislation, the management plan (which focuses on stock recovery of the Brazilian sardinella alone) has not been fully implemented yet. Because the fishery currently lacks appropriate management measures to ensure stocks' recoveries, this factor is deemed as "ineffective."

Factor 3.2 - Bycatch Strategy Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fishery on bycatch species and when applicable, to minimize ghost fishing? How successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the fishery must have no or low bycatch, or if there are bycatch or ghost fishing concerns, there must be effective measures in place to minimize impacts.

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Moderately Effective Most species that were previously caught as bycatch are now considered as part of the fishery, due to Brazilian sardinella's declining stock and its unlikely recovery in the past years, where there are no substantial fisheries statistics to prove it otherwise (pers. comm., C. Cergole 2015), (pers. comm., M. Peres 2017) (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). However, the management plan for Brazilian sardinella only lists the current general regulations regarding bycatch and incidental catch of species of concern, without relating these to actual management actions in the Brazilian sardinella fishery (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). Moreover, while purse seine fisheries may have bycatch, it is difficult to determine bycatch-related concerns given the current "on-hold" status of the fishery statistics program in Brazil. The few initiatives that continue to monitor fisheries in the country are focused on landings of commercial species; however, all those that are bycatch and/or problematic (e.g., threatened species, because current national legislation provides for a crime to land them) ultimately end up not being listed in the reports of responsible institutions (namely: the São Paulo Fisheries Institute and UNIVALI's Fisheries Studies Group) (pers. comm., R. Barreto 2017). Because management strategies for such species is unknown or unclear, bycatch strategy is deemed as "moderate."

Factor 3.3 - Scientific Research and Monitoring Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the fishery’s impact on the species? Is there adequate monitoring of bycatch? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, regular, robust population assessments must be conducted for target or retained species, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are met.

21 Factor 3.4 - Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

Factor 3.5 - Stakeholder Inclusion Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the management process is transparent, if high participation by all stakeholders is encouraged, and if there a mechanism to effectively address user conflicts.

22 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 there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment. The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (factor 4.1 + factor 4.2) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 4 rating 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

GUIDING PRINCIPLES Avoid negative impacts on the structure, function or associated biota of marine habitats where fishing occurs. Maintain the trophic role of all aquatic life. Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophic cascades, or phase shifts. Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect the diversity, abundance, productivity, or genetic integrity of wild stocks. Follow the principles of ecosystem-based fisheries management.

Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Gear Type and Mitigation of Gear Region / Method Substrate Impacts EBFM Score Brazil / Southwest Atlantic / 5 0 Moderate Green Purse seines Concern (3.87)

Criterion 4 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 4.1 - Physical Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate Goal: The fishery does not adversely impact the physical structure of the ocean habitat, seafloor or associated biological communities.

5 - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom 4 - Vertical line gear 3 - Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Or bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Or midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally. Or purse seine known to commonly contact the bottom. 2 - Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Or gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Or bottom seine except on mud/sand. Or there is known trampling of coral reef habitat.

23 1 - Hydraulic clam dredge. Or dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder) 0 - Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts Goal: Damage to the seafloor is mitigated through protection of sensitive or vulnerable seafloor habitats, and limits on the spatial footprint of fishing on fishing effort.

+1 —>50% of the habitat is protected from fishing with the gear type. Or fishing intensity is very low/limited and for trawled fisheries, expansion of fishery’s footprint is prohibited. Or gear is specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications have been shown to be effective at reducing damage. Or there is an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures. +0.5 —At least 20% of all representative habitats are protected from fishing with the gear type and for trawl fisheries, expansion of the fishery’s footprint is prohibited. Or gear modification measures or other measures are in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing that are expected to be effective. 0 —No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats or not applicable because gear used is benign and received a score of 5 in factor 4.1

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Goal: All stocks are maintained at levels that allow them to fulfill their ecological role and to maintain a functioning ecosystem and food web. Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any retained species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction of genetic diversity. Even non-native species should be considered with respect to ecosystem impacts. If a fishery is managed in order to eradicate a non-native, the potential impacts of that strategy on native species in the ecosystem should be considered and rated below.

5 — Policies that have been shown to be effective are in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning (e.g. catch limits that ensure species’ abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators) and effective spatial management is used to protect spawning and foraging areas, and prevent localized depletion. Or it has been scientifically demonstrated that fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects. 4 — Policies are in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but have not proven to be effective and at least some spatial management is used. 3 — Policies are not in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but detrimental food web impacts are not likely or policies in place may not be sufficient to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning. 2 — Policies are not in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning and the likelihood of detrimental food impacts are likely (e.g. trophic cascades, alternate stable states, etc.), but conclusive scientific evidence is not available for this fishery. 1 — Scientifically demonstrated trophic cascades, alternate stable states or other detrimental food web impact are resulting from this fishery.

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

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES

5 The fishing gear used (purse seines) is primarily deployed in the water column on schools of Brazilian sardinella and associated species (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011), so there is little to no impact on bottom habitats. Because of that, purse seine is scored as a 5 (no bottom contact).

Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES 0 Not applicable because purse seine does not impact the seafloor and the fishery received a score of 5 for 4.1

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Moderate Concern Brazilian sardinella is one of the most iconic fisheries in the southeast-south region of Brazil. Because of the severe decline the stock has faced in the past decades, the fishery is now considered to be multi-specific (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011)(Vaz-dos-Santos et al. 2010). However, management measures are focused in the Brazilian sardinella alone (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). While some accessory species such as liza and whitemouth drummer have specific legislation (Brazil 2015) (Haimovici et al. 2016), all other species are not regulated. Published in 2011, the management plan includes minimal spatial management, which focuses on closing areas for both bait fisheries (Brazilian sardinella juveniles are historically caught to be used as bait in tuna fisheries; this has become less common due to Brazilian sardinella stock declines, and the catch can no longer support the amount of bait needed for tuna fishery) and closed areas where the purse seine fishery is prohibited (mostly in/around oil platforms, protected areas, islands, and beaches) (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). Moreover, being a base resource in the food chain, Brazilian sardinella has an important role for several species in the system, including commercially targeted species (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011), although such impacts are not measured. Because food web impacts are likely, and some spatial management is in place, but stronger policies are needed to fully protect the ecological role of Brazilian sardinella, this factor is deemed "moderate."

25 Acknowledgements

Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch would like to thank the consulting researcher and author of this report, Daniele Vila Nova, as well as several anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

26 References

Sant’Ana & Kinas 2016b. Avaliação do Estoque da tainha (Mugil liza): ampliação dos modelos Bayesianos de Dinâmica de Biomassa para múltiplas séries de CPUE, com adição de temperatura superficial do mar e capturabilidade autocorrelacionadas. Oceana Brasil – Termo de referência 032-2015

Brazil - Ministry of FIsheries and Aquiculture. 2010. Boletim Estatistico da Pesca e Aquicultura. Brasilia - DF.

PLANO DE GESTÃO PARA O USO SUSTENTÁVEL DA TAINHA, Mugil liza Valenciennes, 1836, NO SUDESTE E SUL DO BRASIL. Brasília, 238pp.

Brazil - Ministry of the Environment. 2014. The Official National List of Endangered Species - Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates. Portaria MMA #445, 17 of December of 2014. Brasília, DF.

Centro de Pesquisas e Gestão dos Recursos Pesqueiros Lagunares e Estuarinos - CEPERG. 2008. Desembarque de pescados no Rio Grande do Sul. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Brasília.

Centro de Pesquisas e Gestão dos Recursos Pesqueiros Lagunares e Estuarinos - CEPERG. 2009. Desembarque de pescados no Rio Grande do Sul. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Brasília.

Centro de Pesquisas e Gestão dos Recursos Pesqueiros Lagunares e Estuarinos - CEPERG. 2010. Desembarque de pescados no Rio Grande do Sul. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Brasília.

Centro de Pesquisas e Gestão dos Recursos Pesqueiros Lagunares e Estuarinos - CEPERG. 2011. Desembarque de pescados no Rio Grande do Sul. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Brasília.

CEPSUL - Centro Nacional de Pesquisa e Conservação da Biodiversidade Marinha do Sudeste e Sul. 2016. Avaliação do risco de extinção dos elasmobrânquios e quimeras no Brasil: 2010-2012. Itajaí, SC.

Cergole & Dias Neto 2011. Plano de gestão para o uso sustentável da Sardinha-verdadeira Sardinella brasiliensis no Brasil. Brasília, Ibama.

Cergole MC, Ávila-da-Silva AO, Rossi- Wongtschowsky CLDB. 2005. (eds.). Análise das principais pescarias comerciais da região Sudeste-Sul do Brasil: dinâmica populacional das espécies em explotação. Série Doc. Revizee/Score Sul, São Paulo

Chaves PTC and Umbria SC. 2003. Changes in the diet composition of transitory fishes in coastal systems, estuary and continental shelf. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology 46(1): 41-46.

Collette B, Amorim AF, Boustany A, Carpenter KE, de Oliveira Leite Jr N, Di Natale A, Fox W, Fredou FL, Graves J, Viera Hazin FH, Juan Jorda M, Kada O, Minte Vera C, Miyabe N, Nelson R, Oxenford H, Teixeira Lessa RP, Pires Ferreira Travassos PE. 2011. Scomber colias. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2011: e.T170357A6767497. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2011-2.RLTS.T170357A6767497.en. Downloaded on 09 May 2018. da Costa MR, Albieri RJ, Araújo FG. 2005. Size distribution of the jack Chloroscombrus chrysurus (Linnaeus) (Actinopterygii, Carangidae) in a tropical bay at Southeastern Brazil. Rev. Bras. Zool. 22(3): 580-586.

Dias MC. 2012. Diagnóstico das pescarias industriais do Sudeste e Sul do Brasil frente aos padrões internacionais de certificação ambiental: panorama atual, ações e perspectivas. PhD dissertation. Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Itajaí - SC, Brasil.

27 Eschmeyer WN, Fricke R, van der Laan R (eds). 2018. Catalog of fishes. Electronic version accessed 09 Nay 2018. [This version was edited by Bill Eschmeyer.]

Froese R & Pauly D (Editors). 2017. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.

Fundação Instituto de Pesca do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - FIPERJ. 2011. Diagnóstico da Pesca no Estado do Rio de Janeiro - Relatório 2011. Fundação Instituto de Pesca do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. – Niterói-RJ.

Fundação Instituto de Pesca do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - FIPERJ. 2012. Diagnóstico da Pesca no Estado do Rio de Janeiro - Relatório 2012. Fundação Instituto de Pesca do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. – Niterói-RJ.

Fundação Instituto de Pesca do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - FIPERJ. 2013. Diagnóstico da Pesca no Estado do Rio de Janeiro - Relatório 2013. Fundação Instituto de Pesca do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. – Niterói-RJ.

Fundação Instituto de Pesca do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - FIPERJ. 2014. Diagnóstico da Pesca no Estado do Rio de Janeiro - Relatório 2014. Fundação Instituto de Pesca do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. – Niterói-RJ.

Fundação Instituto de Pesca do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - FIPERJ. 2015. Diagnóstico da Pesca no Estado do Rio de Janeiro - Relatório 2015. Fundação Instituto de Pesca do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. – Niterói-RJ.

Gómez-Canchong P, Manjarrés ML, Duarte LO, Altamar J. 2004 Atlas pesquero del area norte del Mar Caribe de Colombia. Universidad del Magadalena, Santa Marta. 230 p.

Stocks and management units of Micropogonias furnieri (Desmarest, 1823) in southwestern Atlantic. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res., 44(5): 1080-1095.

Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade - ICMBio. 2014. Lista das espécies avaliadas como quase ameaçadas (NT) no Brasil. Arquivo .xls

Instituto de Pesca de São Paulo - IPSP. Banco de dados de pesca. Secretaria de Agricultura e Abastecimento, São Paulo. Last access: September 10th, 2017.

Kotas JE 2004. Dinâmica de populações e pesca do tubarão-martelo Sphyrna lewini (Gruffith & Smith, 1834), capturado no mar territorial e zona econômica exclusiva do Sudeste-Sul do Brasil. Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos, PhD thesis.

Magro M, Cergole MC, Rossi-Wongtschowski CLDB. 2000. SÍNTESE DE CONHECIMENTOS DOS PRINCIPAIS RECURSOS PESQUEIROS COSTEIROS POTENCIALMENTE EXPLOTÁVEIS NA COSTA SUDESTE-SUL DO BRASIL: PEIXES. REVIZEE. Brasilia.

Masumoto C & Cergole MC. 2005. Chloroscombrus chrysurus (Linnaeus, 1766). In: M.C. Cergole, A.O. Ávila-da- Silva & C.L.D.B. Rossi- Wongtschowsky (eds.). Análise das principais pescarias comerciais da região Sudeste- Sul do Brasil: dinâmica populacional das espécies em explotação. Série Doc. Revizee/Score Sul, São Paulo, pp. 35-39.

Moraes 2012. Ecologia espacial da sardinha verdadeira (Sardinella brasiliensis Steindachner 1879): padrões relacionados à variabilidade atmosférica e oceânica no Atlântico Sudoeste. PhD dissertation, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, São José dos Campos - SP, Brasil.

Munroe T, Aiken KA, Brown J, Grijalba Bendeck L. 2015. Harengula clupeola. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

28 Species 2015: e.T16449654A16510257. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 4.RLTS.T16449654A16510257.en. Downloaded on September 2017.

Munroe T, Aiken KA, Brown J, Grijalba Bendeck L. 2015b. Opisthonema oglinum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T16466100A16509612. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 4.RLTS.T16466100A16509612.en. Downloaded on 10 May 2018.

National Marine Fisheries Service 2018. Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division. Query on Sardine from Brazil 2008-2018. Accessed in June 7, 2018.

Petermann A. 2015. Avaliação dos ciclos de reprodução e recrutamento das principais espécies componentes da pesca de cerco no Sudeste e Sul do Brasil como estratégia de gestão multiespecífica. Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, MSc thesis.

Petermann A & Schwingel PR. 2016. Overlap of the reproductive cycle and recruitment of the four main species caught by the purse seine fleet in Brazil. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res., 44(5): 1069-1079.

Ruas LC, Vaz-dos-Santos AM. 2017. Age structure and growth of the rough scad, Trachurus lathami (Teleostei: Carangidae), in the Southeastern Brazilian Bight

Sant'Anna R & Kinas PG 2016a. Relatório II Avaliação de estoque - Tainha. Avaliação do Estoque da tainha (Mugil liza): ampliação dos modelos Bayesianos de Dinâmica de Biomassa para múltiplas séries de CPUE, com adição de temperatura superficial do mar e capturabilidade autocorrelacionadas. Oceana Brasil – Termo de referência 032-2015.

Simãozinho PF. 2011. Idade e crescimento da cavalinha (Scomber japonicus Houttuyun, 1782) capturada pela frota de cerco no Sudeste e Sul do Brasil. Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, BSc final paper.

Smith-Vaniz WF, Brown J, Pina Amargos F, Williams JT, Curtis M. 2015c. Chloroscombrus chrysurus (errata version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T16437187A115358128. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T16437187A16510252.en. Downloaded on 07 May 2018.

Smith-Vaniz WF, Williams JT, Pina Amargos F, Curtis M & Brown J. 2015. Trachurus lathami. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T195098A16644007. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 4.RLTS.T195098A16644007.en. Downloaded in September 2017.

Smith-Vaniz WF, Williams JT, Pina Amargos F, Curtis M, Brown J. 2015b. Selene setapinnis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T16506931A16510392. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 4.RLTS.T16506931A16510392.en. Downloaded on September 2017.

System Of Analysis of Foreign Trade Information (Alice Web) 2017. Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria e Comércio Exterior. Last access June 2017

Szpilman M. 2000. Peixes marinhos do Brasil: guia prático de identificação. Rio de Janeiro: 288p.

Tringali MD & Wilson Jr. RR. 1993. Diferences in haplotype frequencies of mtDNA do the Spanish sardine Sardinella aurita between specimens from eastern Gulf of Mexico and southern Brasil. Fishery Bulletin, v. 91, nº 2, p. 362-270.

U.S. Census Bureau 2017. Economic Indicators Division USA Trade Online. Source: U.S. Import and Export Merchandise trade statistics. Accessed in May 2017.

29 Universidade do Vale do Itajaí - UNIVALI. Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar. Boletim estatístico da pesca industrial de Santa Catarina - ano 2008: programa de apoio técnico e científico ao desenvolvimento da pesca no Sudeste e Sul do Brasil / Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar. – Itajaí-SC

Universidade do Vale do Itajaí - UNIVALI. Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar. Boletim estatístico da pesca industrial de Santa Catarina - ano 2009: programa de apoio técnico e científico ao desenvolvimento da pesca no Sudeste e Sul do Brasil / Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar. – Itajaí-SC

Universidade do Vale do Itajaí - UNIVALI. Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar. Boletim estatístico da pesca industrial de Santa Catarina - ano 2010: programa de apoio técnico e científico ao desenvolvimento da pesca no Sudeste e Sul do Brasil / Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar. – Itajaí-SC

Universidade do Vale do Itajaí - UNIVALI. Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar. Boletim estatístico da pesca industrial de Santa Catarina - ano 2011: programa de apoio técnico e científico ao desenvolvimento da pesca no Sudeste e Sul do Brasil / Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar. – Itajaí-SC

Universidade do Vale do Itajaí - UNIVALI. Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar. Boletim estatístico da pesca industrial de Santa Catarina - ano 2012: programa de apoio técnico e científico ao desenvolvimento da pesca no Sudeste e Sul do Brasil / Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e do Mar. – Itajaí-SC

Vasconcellos M & Haimovici M. 2006. Status of white croaker Micropogonias furnieri exploited in southern Brazil according to alternative hypotheses of stock discreetness. Fisheries Research 80: 196-202.

Aspectos biológicos de cinco espécies da ictiofauna associada à pesca exploratória de sardinha-verdadeira no Sudeste-Sul do Brasil (22oS e 29oS), ECOSAR 2008-2009. III Congresso Brasileiro de Oceanografia – CBO’2010. Rio Grande (RS), 02969-02971.

30 Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species ATLANTIC THREAD HERRING Factor 2.1 - Abundance

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Moderate Concern Atlantic thread herring is considered the main alternative species to maintain the supply for the canned sardines industrial sector in face of the decline in Brazilian sardinella's catches, since it presents similar nutritional, taste and visual qualities (Cergole et al. 2005). The species is listed as "Least Concern" by the IUCN red list (Munroe et al. 2015b). Despite that, a formal stock assessment and abundance data are not available for Atlantic thread herring. For this reason, a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) was used for the species. Some of the species information required for the PSA was unavailable. The PSA score equals 2.6568, so the species is deemed to have moderate vulnerability. Detailed scoring of each attribute is shown below. Atlantic thread herring is moderately vulnerable (according to the PSA analysis) and there is no formal stock assessment; therefore, abundance is scored as “moderate” concern.

Score (1 = low risk, 2 = Productivity Relevant Information medium risk, 3 Attributes = high risk) Average age at n/a n/a Maturity Average 8 years (Munroe et al. 2015b) 1 maximum age Fecundity 67,000 (Munroe et al. 2015b) 1 Average maximum 30 cm (Petermann 2015) 1 size (fish only) Average size at maturity (fish 19.6 cm (Petermann 2015) 1 only) Reproductive Broadcast spawner (Petermann 2015) 1 strategy Trophic level 4.5 (Froese and Pauly 2017) 3 The species is coastal pelagic, more common in the upper 3 m of the Habitat quality 1 water column (Munroe et al. 2015b) Productivity 1.2857 score

31 Score (1 = low risk, 2 = Susceptibility Relevant Information medium Attribute risk, 3 = high Risk) Areal overlap Species distribution greatly overlaps to Brazilian sardinella's distribution (and its (Considers all purse seine fishery); therefore, the Atlantic thread herring is fished throughout 3 Fisheries) its range (Petermann 2015) Vertical overlap There is a high overlap of target species and retained species with the gear 3 (Considers all (Petermann 2015) Fisheries) Selectivity of fishery (Specific to Species is targeted (Petermann 2015) 2 fishery under assessment) Post-capture mortality (Specific to All catch is retained (Cergole and Dias 2011) 3 fishery under assessment) Susceptibility 2.325 score

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES High Concern Current F estimates are unknown for Atlantic thread herring. However, landings data from recent assessments indicates a declining trend (see figure below). Additionally, available data is sometimes not divided by gear where purse seine fisheries targets this species. Because Atlantic thread herring is a forage species and the ecological role is undefined, this factor is deemed "high" concern. Justification:

32 Figure 6 Landings information of Atlantic thread herring from the state of Santa Catarina (SC) and Rio de Janeiro (RJ). *Note: data from RJ do not separate landing data by gear. Source: UNIVALI 2008, UNIVALI 2009, UNIVALI 2010, UNIVALI 2011, UNIVALI 2012, FIPERJ 2011, FIPERJ 2012, FIPERJ 2013, FIPERJ 2014, FIPERJ 2015

Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate

ATLANTIC BUMPER Factor 2.1 - Abundance

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Moderate Concern Atlantic bumper is one of the most significant components in the Brazilian sardinella's purse seine fishery, along with Atlantic thread herring and chub mackerel (Petermann and Schwingel 2016). A formal stock assessment and abundance data are not available for Atlantic bumper. For this reason, a Productivity- Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) was used for the species. Some of the species information required for the PSA was unavailable. The PSA score equals 2.8223, so the species is deemed to have moderate vulnerability. Detailed scoring of each attribute is shown below. The species is also listed as "Least Concern" from the IUCN red list (Smith-Vaniz et al. 2015c). Atlantic bumper is moderately vulnerable (according to the PSA analysis) and there is no formal stock assessment, therefore, abundance is scored as “moderate” concern.

33 Score (1 = low risk, 2 = Productivity Relevant Information medium risk, Attributes 3 = high risk) Average age at n/a n/a Maturity Average n/a n/a maximum age Fecundity n/a n/a Average maximum 40 cm (Petermann 2015) 1 size (fish only) Average size at 18.5 cm (Cergole et al. 2005) 1 maturity (fish only) Reproductive Broadcast spawner (Petermann 2015) 1 strategy Trophic level (Froese and Pauly 2017) 3 Marine intertidal and mangrove submerged roots, the latter being more Habitat quality 2 susceptible to human impacts (Smith-Vaniz et al. 2015c) Productivity 1.6 score

Score (1 = low risk, 2 = Susceptibility Relevant Information medium risk, 3 = high Attribute Risk) Areal overlap (Considers all Relevant information is unknown; default value is used 3 Fisheries) Vertical overlap (Considers all Relevant information is unknown; default value is used 3 Fisheries) Selectivity of fishery (Specific to fishery Species is targeted (Petermann 2015) 2 under assessment)

34 Post-capture mortality All catch is retained (Cergole and Dias 2011) 3 (Specific to fishery under assessment) Suscepibility Score 2.325

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES High Concern The last reported F value for Atlantic bumper in Brazil ranges from 0.80 to 1.19 (Cergole et al. 2005). There are no recent estimates for F, and landings data from the last decade shows oscillating numbers (see graphs below). Atlantic bumper is a forage species, with a carnivorous diet predominantly composed of copepods (Chaves and Umbria 2003). Fishing mortality is deemed of "high" concern because Atlantic bumper is a forage species and this fishery does not have a precautionary strategy targeting dependent predators. Justification:

35 Figure 7 Landings information of Atlantic bumper from the state of Santa Catarina (SC), São Paulo (SP) and Rio de Janeiro (RJ). *Note: data from RJ do not separate landing data by gear. Source: UNIVALI 2008,

36 UNIVALI 2009, UNIVALI 2010, UNIVALI 2011, UNIVALI 2012, FIPERJ 2011, FIPERJ 2012, FIPERJ 2013, FIPERJ 2014, FIPERJ 2015, IPSP 2017.

Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate

ROUGH SCAD Factor 2.1 - Abundance

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Moderate Concern A formal stock assessment and abundance data are not available for rough scad in Brazil. For this reason, a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) was used for the species. Some of the species information required for the PSA was unavailable. The PSA score equals 2.6801, so the species is deemed to have moderate vulnerability. Detailed scoring of each attribute is shown below (n/a = information not available). The species is also listed as "Least Concern" by the IUCN (Smith-Vaniz et al. 2015). Rough scad is moderately vulnerable (according to the PSA analysis) and there is no formal stock assessment; therefore, abundance is scored as “moderate” concern.

Score (1 = low risk, 2 = Productivity Relevant Information medium risk, 3 Attributes = high risk) Average age at n/a n/a Maturity Average 8 years (Ruas and Vaz-dos-Santos 2017) 1 maximum age Fecundity n/a n/a Average maximum 40 cm (Froese and Pauly 2017) 1 size (fish only)

37 Average size at maturity (fish 11.5 cm (Ruas and Vaz-dos-Santos 2017) 1 only) Reproductive Broadcast spawner (Froese and Pauly 2017) 1 strategy Trophic level 4 (Froese and Pauly 2017) 3 Subtidal rock, rocky reefs, sandy, muddy, sandy-mud, loose Habitat quality 1 rock/pebble/gravel (Smith-Vaniz et al. 2015) Productivity 1.3333 score

Score (1 = low risk, 2 Susceptibility = Relevant Information Attribute medium risk, 3 = high Risk) Areal overlap (Considers all Relevant information is unknown; default value is used. 3 Fisheries) Vertical overlap (Considers all Relevant information is unknown; default value is used. 3 Fisheries) Selectivity of fishery Species is known to form large schools (Smith-Vaniz et al. (Specific to fishery 2 2015) under assessment) Post-capture mortality All catch is retained (Cergole and Dias 2011) 3 (Specific to fishery under assessment) Susceptibility 2.325 score

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Moderate Concern Current F estimates are unknown for rough scad, and F = 0.55 (1998) (Cergole et al. 2005). However, landings data from recent assessments indicate fluctuating/declining numbers (see figures below). Another study shows that Brazilian sardinella's landings increased while rough scad dropped, without a clear association between them (Ruas and Vaz-dos-Santos 2017) (see last figure below). Because F is unknown and available information is not enough for a different score, this factor is deemed as "moderate."

38 Justification:

Figure 8 Landings information of rough scad from the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS), Santa Catarina (SC), São Paulo (SP) and Rio de Janeiro (RJ). *Note: data from RJ do not separate landing data by gear. Source: UNIVALI 2008, UNIVALI 2009, UNIVALI 2010, UNIVALI 2011, UNIVALI 2012, CEPERG 2011, FIPERJ 2011, FIPERJ 2012, FIPERJ 2013, FIPERJ 2014, FIPERJ 2015, IPSP 2017.

39 Figure 9 Commercial landings of rough scad and Brazilian sardinella in the Southeastern Brazilian Bight. Source: (Ruas & Vaz-dos-Santos 2017) and its references.

Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate

ATLANTIC MOONFISH Factor 2.1 - Abundance

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Moderate Concern

40 There is no quantitative stock assessment available for Atlantic moonfish in Brazil, but the species has a "Least Concern" status within the IUCN list (Smith-Vaniz et al. 2015b). Because of the "Least Concern" IUCN status, Atlantic moonfish is scored as “moderate” concern.

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Moderate Concern The last reported F value for Atlantic moonfish in Brazil is 0.45 (Cergole et al. 2005). There are no recent estimates for F, and landings data from the last decade shows a declining trend in the states of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro (see graphs below). Fishing mortality is deemed "moderate" because it is unknown and there is not enough information for the species. Justification:

Figure 10 Landings information of Atlantic moonfish from the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS), Santa Catarina (SC), São Paulo (SP) and Rio de Janeiro (RJ). *Note: data from RJ do not separate landing data by gear. Source: CEPERG 2011, UNIVALI 2008, UNIVALI 2009, UNIVALI 2010, UNIVALI 2011, UNIVALI 2012, FIPERJ 2011, FIPERJ 2012, FIPERJ 2013, FIPERJ 2014, FIPERJ 2015, IPSP 2017.

Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate

41 ATLANTIC CUTLASSFISH Factor 2.1 - Abundance

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Moderate Concern Atlantic cutlassfish is among the most significant catches in purse seine fisheries (Magro et al. 2000). However, there is no consistent stock assessment on the species in Brazil. Atlantic cutlassfish is listed as "Least Concern" by the IUCN, with a stable population trend (Collette et al. 2015). Because there is no formal stock assessment and the species is listed as "Least Concern," abundance is scored as “moderate” concern.

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Moderate Concern The last reported F value for Atlantic cutlassfish in Brazil is 2.17/year (Cergole et al. 2005). There are no recent estimates for F, and landings data from the last decade show oscillating numbers, with a significant increment in 2017 in the state of São Paulo (see graphs below) (IPSP 2017). Fishing mortality is deemed "moderate" because it is unknown and there is not enough information for a different category. Justification:

Figure 11 Landings information of Atlantic cutlassfish from the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS), Santa Catarina (SC), São Paulo (SP) and Rio de Janeiro (RJ). *Note: data from RJ do not separate landing data by gear.

42 Source: CEPERG 2008, CEPERG 2009, CEPERG 2010, CEPERG 2011, UNIVALI 2008, UNIVALI 2009, UNIVALI 2010, UNIVALI 2011, UNIVALI 2012, FIPERJ 2011, FIPERJ 2012, FIPERJ 2013, FIPERJ 2014, FIPERJ 2015, IPSP 2017.

Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate

LIZA Factor 2.1 - Abundance

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES High Concern The latest assessment of liza was released by the government in 2015 (Brazil, 2015). An independent assessment was published in 2016 presenting suggestions for an annual catch limit system to be implemented in the country (Sant'Ana and Kinas 2016a), which was not acknowledged by the government. The independent study estimated SSB2015 = 15,973 T and SSBMSY = 19,082 T with B2015 /B MSY = 0.837 (Sant’Ana and Kinas 2016b). Both assessments report an overfished status for liza (Brazil 2015) (Sant'Ana and Kinas 2016a). The species is also listed as "near threatened" by the last national evaluation (ICMBio 2014). Stock status is rated "high" concern because the biomass is depleted and mitigating actions have not been implemented.

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Moderate Concern

The latest assessment of liza indicates that fishing mortality is high, with the 2016 estimate being FMSY = 0.38 (Sant'Ana and Kinas 2016a) (see figure below). Previous reports claim F = 0.48 (juveniles) and F = 0.31 (~age 2), indicating a high fishing pressure/mortality also in nursery areas (Brazil, 2015). Fishing mortality is rated "moderate" concern because F is fluctuating around FMSY values. Justification:

43 Figure 12 Time series F / Fmsy: the time estimates have been, in several years, above the sustainable limit for the stock (F / Fmsy > 1). As of 2007, fishing mortality was above Fmsy, except for the years of 2012 and 2013. White circles - point estimate; Gray shaded area - 95% range

Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate

44 mackerel, rough scad, whitemouth drummer) are kept and sold. This is most common when the season is weak for Brazilian sardinella and the bycatch is sold to cover expenses within the fishery (pers. comm., Cergole 2015).

FALSE PILCHARD Factor 2.1 - Abundance

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Moderate Concern False pilchard lives associated with Brazilian sardinella schools and is captured in purse seine fisheries targeting sardinella (Cergole and Dias Neto 2011). However, there is no consistent stock assessment on the species in Brazil. False pilchard is listed as "Least Concern" by the IUCN, with a decreasing population trend (Munroe et al. 2015). Because there is no formal stock assessment and the species is listed as "Least Concern," abundance is scored as “moderate” concern.

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES High Concern There are no recent estimates for F, and landings data from the last decade show different trends for the states of Santa Catarina and Rio de Janeiro (see graphs below) for false pilchard. Fishing mortality is deemed "high" concern because false pilchard is a forage species, the ecological role has not been defined, and the fishery lacks a precautionary strategy about dependent predators. Justification:

Figure 13 Landings information of false herring from the state of Santa Catarina (SC) and Rio de Janeiro (RJ). *Note: data from RJ do not separate landing data by gear. Source: UNIVALI 2008, UNIVALI 2009, UNIVALI 2010, UNIVALI 2011, UNIVALI 2012, FIPERJ 2011, FIPERJ 2012, FIPERJ 2013, FIPERJ 2014, FIPERJ 2015

45 Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES < 100%

With the decline of Brazilian sardinella population over the past decades, the usual bycatch species (not limited to, but mostly Atlantic thread herring, Atlantic cutlassfish, Atlantic moonfish, Atlantic bumper, chub mackerel, rough scad, whitemouth drummer) are kept and sold. This is most common when the season is weak for Brazilian sardinella and the bycatch is sold to cover expenses within the fishery (pers. comm., Cergole 2015).

SHARKS Factor 2.1 - Abundance

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES High Concern Shark species with occurrence in the south-southeast region of Brazil are in majority within the threat categories (critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable) according to the 2014's Brazilian Red List (Brazil 2014) (CEPSUL 2016). There is not enough documented evidence of shark bycatch in purse seine fisheries targeting Brazilian sardinella. A study on hammerhead shark bycatch with different gear types showed that, on average, purse seine bycatch for this species accounted for only 0.12% to 0.53% of all landings (Kotas 2004). It is probable that other coastal and/or oceanic-coastal species may also occur, (e.g., Carcharhinus spp., mainly C. falciformis and C. signatus) (pers. comm., R. Barreto). Despite the lack of information regarding shark bycatch in this fishery, the factor is deemed "high" concern because of their high vulnerability and unknown reported species.

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality

BRAZIL / SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC, PURSE SEINES Low Concern Because data is not available for fishing mortality of sharks in this fishery, the "unknown bycatch matrix" was used. Non-tuna purse seine fisheries score 3.5 for sharks in the Southwest Atlantic and, for this reason, this factor is deemed "low" concern.

Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate