Lane Snapper, Mutton Snapper, Yellowtail Snapper Brazil

Home , Dog snapper, Lane snapper, Lutjanidae, Lutjanus, Lutjanus purpureus, Mutton snapper

Lane snapper, Mutton snapper, Yellowtail snapper

Lutjanus synagris, Lutjanus analis, Ocyurus chrysurus

Image © Diane Rome Peebles Brazil

Trap, Handline

March 11, 2016

Fabio Caltabellotta, Ludmila Damasio, Daniele Vila Nova, Independent Research Analysts

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. 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 Report. Each report 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.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, 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 Seafood Reports 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 Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood 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 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.

Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wild- catch fisheries 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 effective 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 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 the Safina Center’s 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

Table of Contents

About Seafood Watch® ...... 2

Guiding Principles ...... 3

Summary ...... 5

Introduction ...... 7

Assessment ...... 15 Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation ...... 15 Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species ...... 23 Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ...... 51 Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem...... 58

Acknowledgements ...... 62

References ...... 63

Summary

This report evaluates the main commercial snapper species—lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris), yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus), and mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis)—that are exported from Brazil to the U.S. market. These species are mainly caught by the artisanal fishery of the Northeast and Southeast region of Brazil with handlines and traps.

In terms of biomass, yellowtail snapper accounted for 20% of landings (approximately 1,951 metric tons (MT) in 2011); lane snapper accounted for 50% of landings (4,988 MT in 2011); and mutton snapper accounted for 30% of landings (approximately 3,015 MT in 2011). Landings of snappers have decreased for the last decade in the Northeast and Southeast regions of Brazil, while remaining steady in the North region. During 1998–2007, the state of Ceará was responsible for approximately 35% of all snapper landings, followed by the state of Espirito Santo with 16% and the state of Bahia with 15%. Fishing mortality rates for all three snapper species indicate clear signs of overexploitation in Brazil, calling for management actions. But most landing reports in Brazil place these species in broader categories (i.e., labeling them “snappers” instead of with species names), which restricts the reliability of these data.

Fishing gears (handline and traps) evaluated in this assessment have showed significant differences related to bycatch and their impact on the sea floor. Handline is considered a low-bycatch fishery and does not impact the sea floor. But such fisheries in Brazil target species that are reported to be in decline. These species include key functional groups that play an important role in the top-down control of other species. On the other hand, trap fisheries are more common in the Northeastern region of Brazil and, unlike handlines, this gear type reaches the seafloor of rocky bottom and coral reefs. Information on the bycatch of this fishery includes ornamental reef fish and some elasmobranchs. There have been no recent catch or landings data for both fisheries at a country level since 2011; however, some updates for catch data can be obtained through survey operations. For management control, Marine Protected Areas—although few in number along the Brazilian coastline (currently making up only 2% of the entire Exclusive Economic Zone)—have been shown to improve fish stocks when enforcement exists, particularly in no-take MPAs (less than 0.2% of EEZ).

Due to these factors mentioned and more detailed information in the report, Seafood Watch categorizes snapper caught in Brazil on the Avoid list.

Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations

Stock / Fishery Impacts on Impacts on Management Habitat and Overall the Stock other Spp. Ecosystem Recommendation Mutton snapper Red (1.41) Red (1.41) Red (1.00) Yellow (2.92) Avoid (1.554) Brazil Atlantic - Handline Mutton snapper Red (1.41) Red (1.41) Red (1.00) Yellow (2.55) Avoid (1.503) Brazil Atlantic - Trap Lane snapper Red (1.73) Red (1.41) Red (1.00) Yellow (2.92) Avoid (1.635) Brazil Atlantic - Handline Lane snapper Red (1.73) Red (1.41) Red (1.00) Yellow (2.55) Avoid (1.581) Brazil Atlantic - Trap Yellowtail snapper Red (1.41) Red (1.41) Red (1.00) Yellow (2.92) Avoid (1.554) Brazil Atlantic - Handline Yellowtail snapper Red (1.41) Red (1.41) Red (1.00) Yellow (2.55) Avoid (1.503) Brazil Atlantic - Trap

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 Concern1F2, 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). 7

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

Although many snapper species are caught along the Brazilian coast, this report discusses only the three most important commercial species relative to the U.S. fish market: lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris), yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus), and mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis). Fishing methods assessed for this report are handline and trap.

The fishing areas considered in this assessment are in the Northeast and Southeast regions of Brazil, focusing on the artisanal fisheries.

Overview of the species and management bodies

In Brazil, snappers have been exploited by commercial fishing since the introduction of pargueiras, or hooks and lines, during the 1950s and 1960s, in order to diversify from the tuna and lobster fishing that have been in decline since then (Resende et al. 2003). This report analyses three species of snappers: lane snapper, yellowtail snapper, and mutton snapper.

There is ineffective management of the three species of snappers discussed in this report. Along the Brazilian coast, regulations are limited to a requirement for onboard maps and the legalization of the use of handlines and trap (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). There are no size restrictions, catch limits, seasonal closures, area closures, or other spatial management. There are some reef areas inside Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that are under no-take and multiple-use regimes (Francini-Filho and Moura 2008) (Moura et al. 2007). But, because MPAs make up only 2% of the entire Exclusive Economic Zone, they are not sufficient to reverse declines in reef fish abundance (Vila-Nova et al. 2014). Small-scale fishers are becoming progressively more involved in the process of establishing policies for fisheries in Brazil (CONFREM 2015). Several organizations in favor of Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries are gaining force and promoting bottom-up governance (e.g., Fish Forever 2014).

The lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris) is silvery pink to reddish in color, with short, irregular pink and yellow lines on its sides with a diffuse black spot. Juvenile fish are found inshore over shallow reefs and adults are found offshore, where they form large spawning aggregations (Froese and Pauly 2015) (Leite et al. 2005). The lane snapper has been reported from the Western Atlantic (Bermuda and North Carolina, United States) to southeastern Brazil, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea (Cervigón 1993). The lane snapper becomes sexually mature at 15 cm total body length (TL) at 1 year of age, and is a generalist carnivore and trophic opportunistic fish, preying on a wide range of resources (Duarte and Garcia 1999) (Lessa et al. 2004). It is an important fishery resource and is highly esteemed for its tasty white meat (Cavalcanti et al. 2010).

Yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) is a common reef-associated species in coastal waters in the Western Atlantic from Massachusetts, United States to southeastern Brazil (Froese and Pauly 2015). 8

Growth rates for the yellowtail snapper vary by location (Araujo et al. 2002) (de Mattos and Maynou 2009), as does size at maturity, which ranges from 20 to 24.5 cm (Fredou et al. 2009) (Freitas et al. 2011a). The species usually feeds at night on plankton, fish, and benthic animals (crustaceans, worms, and gastropods) (Ferreira et al. 2004) (Froese and Pauly 2015). Juveniles are generally found over seagrass beds, feeding on plankton (Froese and Pauly 2015), and have been reported to dwell among coral branches in Brazil (Coni et al. 2013). Yellowtail snapper is known to form spawning aggregations in many fishing grounds along the coast (Costa et al. 2003) (Francini-Filho et al. 2004), and to spawn many times a year with different spawning peaks in different locations (Diehdhiou 2000) (Freitas et al. 2011a) (Begossi et al. 2011). It is reported to hybridize with Lutjanus synagris (Batista et al. 2012). This species is one of the main resources in coastal artisanal fisheries, especially in the Northeast region of Brazil (Teixeira 2004). Recent studies suggest that the population in Brazil is highly connected (da Silva et al. 2015), therefore management initiatives should consider the entire stock as one.

Mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis) is distributed in the Western Atlantic from Massachusetts, United States to southeastern Brazil (Figueiredo 1980). It occurs in a variety of habitats, such as sand bottoms, seaweed-dominated reefs, bays, mangroves, and estuaries (Allen 1985). In Brazil, it is commonly found over hard substrates and reefs, in the northeastern and southeastern coast (Frédou & Ferreira 2005). This species usually exhibits a diurnal feeding pattern (Watanabe 2001), which includes decapod crustaceans and fishes as the most important food items (Pimentel & Joyeux 2010) (Freitas et al. 2011b). The species displays two reproductive spawning seasons, between November and April, and the second spawning between June and July (Teixeira et al. 2010). In Brazil, this species is mainly caught by handline artisanal fisheries (Frédou & Ferreira 2005) and traps (Ribeiro 2004), especially in the Northeast region, representing a great economic resource. Mutton snapper was listed as Vulnerable by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (Huntsman 1996) and is considered Near Threatened by the Brazilian management body (ICMBio 2014a).

Production statistics

Catch statistics of the snappers on the Brazilian coast were obtained from official national bulletins of the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and from the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture (MPA), and through the Database of the Management for Statistical Control of the Marine Fisheries Production–ProPesq® for the São Paulo State (Ávila-da-Silva et al. 1999). On the Brazilian coast, yellowtail snapper accounted for 20% of landings (approximately 1,951 metric tons (MT) in 2011); lane snapper accounted for 50% of landings (4,988 MT in 2011); and mutton snapper accounted for 30% of landings (approximately 3,015 MT in 2011).

Figure 1: Total landings of lane snapper (Lutjanus synagris), yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus) and mutton snapper (Lutjanus analis), 1998–2011 (Data from IBAMA and MPA).

According to the landings data by state from 2007, yellowtail snapper and lane snapper were primarily landed in Ceará (1,199 and 1,492 MT, respectively), while mutton snapper was primarily landed in Espírito Santo (1,270 MT). Landings of snappers have decreased for the last decade in the Northeast and Southeast regions of Brazil, while remaining steady in the North region. During 1998–2007, Ceará was responsible for approximately 35% of all snapper landings, followed by Espirito Santo with 16% and Bahia with 15%.

Figure 2: Commercial snapper landings by region, 1998–2007 (Data from IBAMA).

Figure 3: Percentage of commercial snapper landings by state, 1998–2007 (Data from IBAMA).

Importance to the U.S./North American market

The U.S. imports of edible fishery products in 2013 were valued at $18.0 billion. The main fish supplier markets are: Asia, North America, and South America (59%, 17%, and 15% of total imports, respectively). In South America, Brazil ranks fourth among the fish supplier markets to the United States, exporting mainly lobsters and a variety of fishes including snappers (NOAA 2013).

Figure 4: Principal areas of import to the United States (NOAA 2013).

Between 1998 and 2014, the United States imported from Brazil a total of 54,976 MT of snapper, which represented around $207.0 million. Annual imports during this period peaked in 2003 with 5,839 MT. In 2005, imports started to decrease, and between 2008 and 2009 reached the lowest values at around 1,150 MT. Since 2010, the volume of snapper imports is considered stable at around 2,500 MT per year (NOAA 2015).

Figure 5: Total snapper production imported by the United States from Brazil, 1998–2014 (NMFS 2015).

Common and market names

Ocyurus chrysurus Acceptable market name: snapper Common name: yellowtail snapper Vernacular name: palu-i'usama

Lutjanus synagris Acceptable market name: snapper Common name: lane snapper Vernacular name: spot snapper, redtail snapper, silk snapper

Lutjanus analis Acceptable market name: snapper Common name: mutton snapper Vernacular name: muttonfish, pargo, pargo criollo (FDA 2015)

Primary product forms

Snappers are exported to the U.S. market both fresh (whole and gutted) and frozen (whole and gutted) (Cunha et al. 2012). Fillets of snappers are also exported from Brazil, but are less common. Between 1996 and 2008, the main categories of snappers that were exported to the United States by the companies of Rio Grande do Norte (i.e., from the Northeast region of Brazil) are presented in Table 1 (Carvalho et al. 2013).

Table 1: Percentages of processed snapper exported by companies in Rio Grande do Norte, between 1996 and 2008 (Data from Carvalho et al. 2013).

Assessment

This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries, available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation

This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing rating 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 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.

Criterion 1 Summary

LANE SNAPPER Region / Method Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality Brazil Atlantic 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 1.00:High Red (1.732) Handline Concern Concern Brazil Atlantic 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 1.00:High Red (1.732) Trap Concern Concern

MUTTON SNAPPER Region / Method Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality Brazil Atlantic 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Handline Concern Concern Brazil Atlantic 2.00:Medium 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Trap Concern Concern

YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER Region / Method Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality Brazil Atlantic 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Handline Concern Concern Brazil Atlantic 1.00:High 2.00:High 1.00:High Red (1.414) Trap Concern Concern

Criterion 1 Assessment

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines

• Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing ( • Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain). • High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.

Factor 1.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass. • 4 (Low Concern)—Population 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 inherent vulnerability to fishing. • 2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing. • 1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the 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, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, 17

but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught). • 2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility 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 fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place. • 0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing.

LANE SNAPPER

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Medium

The FishBase vulnerability score for lane snapper is 38 (Froese and Pauly 2015), which corresponds to a “medium” inherent vulnerability. Lane snapper has a long lifetime (≈22 years) but reaches sexual maturity within 1 year (Aschenbrenner, A. C., 2009) (Leite et al. 2005) (Lessa et al. 2004).

Factor 1.2 - Stock Status

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Moderate Concern

The latest estimates of lane snapper biomass were made in 2005 and 2006 (Klippel et al. 2005) (MMA 2006). In 2005, the biomass estimated for the states of Bahia and Espirito Santo was 608 tons, and in 2006 the biomass estimated for the northeast region of Brazil was 7,200 tons. Because there are no recent studies of lane snapper biomass in Brazil, and the species’ vulnerability score is medium, we assigned this species’ abundance score as “moderate” concern.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

The fishing mortality data on lane snapper in Brazil is outdated. According to Lessa et al. 2004 (Lessa et al. 2004), lane snapper fishing mortality is high: 0.197. In a more recent study (Fredou et al. 2009), the estimates of fishing mortality vary from 0.056 to 2.980, depending on the scenario considered. The estimated parameters for biomass also vary greatly (see Table 2). Because the current F is unknown and there is no specific management in place for this species at a national level, we assign the species a rating of “high” concern. In addition, Lessa et al. 2004 (Lessa et al. 2004) also assessed the stock of lane snapper in the northeast as experiencing overfishing.

Rationale:

Table 2: Estimates of fishery parameters and target management action based on Fmax for lane snapper (Fredou et al. 2009).

MUTTON SNAPPER

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Medium

The FishBase vulnerability score for mutton snapper is 47 (Froese and Pauly 2015). The life-history characteristics that underlie the “medium” vulnerability score for this species are: maximum longevity of 40 years for the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (SEDAR, 2008), and 29 years for the east coast of Florida and northeastern Brazil (Burton, 2002) (Lessa et al. 2004); von Bertalanffy growth parameters –1 of L∞ = 87.4 cm TL (total length), k = –0.16 y , and t0 = –1.32 for the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf of –1 Mexico (SEDAR, 2008), L∞ = 86.9 cm TL, k = 0.16 y , and t0 = –0.94 for the east coast of Florida (Burton, –1 2002), and L∞ = 59.0 cm TL, k = 0.16 y , and t0 = –1.8 for northeastern Brazil (Lessa et al. 2004); age at maturity of 3.7 years (SEDAR, 2008); and natural mortality ranging from M = 0.11 (SEDAR, 2008) (Lessa et al. 2004) to M = 0.28 (Burton, 2002).

Factor 1.2 - Stock Status

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

No evidence is available to suggest that the stock is either above or below reference points. The latest estimates of biomass values were calculated from cohort analysis and ranged from 1,568 to 90,720 t (Fredou et al. 2009). In the past, the Brazilian Ministry of Environment (MMA 2004) classified mutton snapper as a threatened species; however, due to the pressure of industrial fisheries, this species was reclassified to Appendix II as overexploited (MMA 2005). Considering that the current biomass is unknown, we have assigned “high” concern for this criterion, based on the global evaluation of mutton snapper by the IUCN Red List as a Vulnerable species (Huntsman 1996) (IUCN 2015) and as a Near Threatened species by the Brazilian National List (ICMBio 2014).

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

According to Klippel et al. (2005), an increasing trend in exploitation rates was observed for mutton snapper using virtual population analysis, with the fishing mortality rates exceeding the natural 20

mortality rate (F/Z > 0.5), mainly for individuals > 65 cm of FL (Klippel et al. 2005). These authors have also suggested that, based on the Thompson & Bell prediction models, mutton snapper should be regarded as lightly overexploited since the optimal level of fishing mortality was at 80% of the current. In 2009, using different scenarios for assessing snapper stocks, Fredou et al. (2009) estimated the fishery parameter Fcurrent for mutton snapper that ranged from 20% to 40% above FMAX when M = 0.1, indicating that the stock is overexploited (Fredou et al. 2009). Therefore, considering the uncertainty in the current F value, which appears to have increased significantly, and the lack of effective management, the stock should be considered as “high” concern.

Rationale:

Table 3: Estimates of fishery parameters and target management action based on Fmax for mutton snapper (Fredou et al. 2009).

YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High

The FishBase vulnerability score for yellowtail snapper is 65 (Froese and Pauly 2015), which corresponds to a “high” inherent vulnerability. Yellowtail snapper has a long lifespan and slow growth rate, which make the species susceptible to overfishing (Araujo et al. 2002). Moreover, the species appears to present populations with limited distribution along the Brazilian coast (Diedhiou et al. 2004), making these local stocks easily vulnerable to intensive fisheries.

Factor 1.2 - Stock Status

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

In the past, the biomass of yellowtail snapper was estimated at 8,910 t, or approximately 18,000,000 recruits (Klippel et al. 2005). In 2009, another estimate was performed using several scenarios (Fredou et al. 2009) (see Table 4). Both studies indicate that this species’ abundance is declining. There are no recent studies of biomass for yellowtail snapper in Brazil (Safina Center 2014a). Because there are no recent studies concerning yellowtail snapper stocks in Brazil, and since the species-vulnerability score is high, we assign this species an abundance score of “high” concern.

Rationale:

Table 4: Estimates of fishery parameters and target management action based on Fmax for yellowtail snapper (Fredou et al. 2009).

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

Cumulative fishing pressure on yellowtail snapper in Brazil is quite high. Yellowtail snapper was classified as overexploited in a recent study using local ecological knowledge in the northeast coast of Brazil. But the importance of yellowtail snapper to local fisheries and its current abundance (compared to other species) may mask its overexploited status (Bender et al. 2013). Overall, yellowtail snapper is broadly fished in Brazil, and there are overexploited populations (Costa et al. 2003) (Floeter et al. 2006) (IBAMA 2006)(Mariano and Rosa 2010) especially in the central coastal region (Klippel et al. 2005). The estimates of fishery mortality for yellowtail snapper may vary from 0.003 to 0.591 in different scenarios. The estimated parameters for biomass may also vary greatly (see Table 4).

Maximum yield is not clear for this species and exhibits overexploitation (see Table 4). F0.1 was 0.055 (at

M = 0.17), which represents an 80% reduction in FCURRENT (Fredou et al. 2009). There is no specific management in place for this species at a national level; however, the only gears allowed for snapper 22

fisheries in general are traps and vertical longlines (IBAMA 2011). Participatory approaches to management have been suggested, including the establishment of catch and effort limitations, setting no-take zones in spawning sites, and temporal closures (Freitas et al. 2011a). Because the population is depleted and management restrictions are only locally implemented (i.e., not effective at a national level), we assign this species a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.

Rationale: See Table 4 in Factor 1.2 above. 23

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species

All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. 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. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. 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 Critical.

Criterion 2 Summary

Lane snapper: Brazil Atlantic, Handline

Subscore:: 1.414 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.414

Species Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality BLACK GROUPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern CARIBBEAN RED SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern DOG SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern GOLIATH High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern MUTTON SNAPPER Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern NURSE SHARK High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern QUEEN TRIGGERFISH Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern RED GROUPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern SILK SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern VERMILION SNAPPER Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern 24

YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern LANE SNAPPER Medium 3.00: 1.00: High 1.732 Moderate Concern Concern CONEY Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern

Lane snapper: Brazil Atlantic, Trap

Subscore:: 1.414 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.414

Species Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality AGASSIZ'S PARROTFISH Low 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern BLACK GROUPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern CARIBBEAN RED SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern DOG SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern GRAY PARROTFISH Low 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern MUTTON SNAPPER Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern NURSE SHARK High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern QUEEN TRIGGERFISH Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern RED GROUPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern SILK SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern VERMILION SNAPPER Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern LANE SNAPPER Medium 3.00: 1.00: High 1.732 Moderate Concern Concern CONEY Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern 25

Mutton snapper: Brazil Atlantic, Handline

Subscore:: 1.414 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.414

Mutton snapper: Brazil Atlantic, Trap

Subscore:: 1.414 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.414

Species Inherent Stock Status Fishing Subscore Vulnerability Mortality AGASSIZ'S PARROTFISH Low 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern 26

BLACK GROUPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern CARIBBEAN RED SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern DOG SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern GRAY PARROTFISH Low 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern MUTTON SNAPPER Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern NURSE SHARK High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern QUEEN TRIGGERFISH Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern RED GROUPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern SILK SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern VERMILION SNAPPER Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern LANE SNAPPER Medium 3.00: 1.00: High 1.732 Moderate Concern Concern CONEY Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern

Yellowtail snapper: Brazil Atlantic, Handline

Subscore:: 1.414 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.414

NURSE SHARK High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern QUEEN TRIGGERFISH Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern RED GROUPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern SILK SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern VERMILION SNAPPER Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern LANE SNAPPER Medium 3.00: 1.00: High 1.732 Moderate Concern Concern CONEY Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern

Yellowtail snapper: Brazil Atlantic, Trap

Subscore:: 1.414 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.414

VERMILION SNAPPER Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern YELLOWTAIL SNAPPER High 2.00: High 1.00: High 1.414 Concern Concern LANE SNAPPER Medium 3.00: 1.00: High 1.732 Moderate Concern Concern CONEY Medium 3.00: 2.33: 2.644 Moderate Moderate Concern Concern

The fish species assessed under Criterion 2 include those most commonly caught with snappers in Brazilian handline and trap fisheries. They were chosen based on their catch levels and their conservation status (e.g., Endangered, Vulnerable, Threatened, Near Threatened) on the IUCN Red List and/or the Brazilian National Red List. The literature consulted to select the species for Criterion 2 included fishery reports with landings data and ranks of most commonly caught species in handline and trap fisheries, as well as scientific papers and grey literature (i.e., M.Sc. and Ph.D. dissertations).

The lowest scoring Criterion 2 species that determined the handline scores for the assessed snappers are: black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci), Caribbean red snapper (Lutjanus purpureus), dog snapper (Lutjanus jocu), Goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara), nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum), queen triggerfish (Balistes vetula), red grouper (Epinephelus morio), silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus), vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens), and yellowmouth grouper (Mycteroperca interstitialis).

The lowest scoring Criterion 2 species that determined the trap scores for the assessed snappers are: Agassiz’s parrotfish (Sparisoma frondosum), black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci), Caribbean red snapper (Lutjanus purpureus), dog snapper (Lutjanus jocu), gray parrotfish (Sparisoma axillare), nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum), queen triggerfish (Balistes vetula), red grouper (Epinephelus morio), silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus), vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorubens), and yellowmouth grouper (Mycteroperca interstitialis). For the handline and trap fisheries, these species limit the score for Criterion 2 due to a set of characteristics that particularly include high vulnerability, declining or unknown current stock status, and fishing mortality stated as unknown or as higher than optimal levels. All mentioned limiting species had a low score of 1.414 on the assessment.

Criterion 2 Assessment

AGASSIZ'S PARROTFISH

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Trap Low

Agassiz’s parrotfish is a target species for trap fisheries in Brazil. The FishBase vulnerability score is 34, corresponding to “low” inherent vulnerability (Froese and Pauly 2015). This species is endemic to Brazil and some oceanic islands (St. Paul’s Rocks and Cape Verde) and presents early sexual maturity at 17 months or so (Lessa et al., 2015).

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

Agassiz’s parrotfish is an endemic species listed as Vulnerable by the Brazilian National Red List (criteria A3cd) (MMA 2014) (ICMBio 2014), although the list is currently suspended by a judicial order. The main reason to list this species as Vulnerable is due to a population decrease up to 70% in the last 8 years (ICMBio 2014). Because it is considered a species of concern by the government, we assigned Agassiz’s parrotfish as “high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

The fishing mortality rate (F) for Agassiz’s parrotfish is unknown in Brazil. This species is caught in many areas, mainly by fishing traps. Among the states of Pernambuco, Paraíba, and Rio Grande do Norte, this type of fishing has increased. In 2003, in Pernambuco and Rio Grande do Norte, catches of 36 boats using traps recorded 36.14 t of Sparisoma spp., especially S. frondosum in Rio Grande do Norte. By analyzing official catch data, the annual average landings of Sparisoma species were estimated around 200 t in Pernambuco for 1996 to 2001, as well as for 2002 and 2005 (136.5 and 280.5 t, 30

respectively) (Lessa et al. 2015). At various points of distribution there were inferred declines of up to 85% in the last 8 years in unprotected reefs, based on comparisons with fully protected areas, which cover less than 0.1% of the Brazilian reefs (ICMBio 2014).

Based on a generational estimate of about 8 years, there is a prediction of local extinctions in unprotected areas during the next 24 years. Although sharp declines have not been observed for this species, the population is projected to decline by at least 30% over the next 24 years if the current fishing pressure continues (ICMBio 2014). Because current F is unknown and there is no specific management for this species, we assign a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Trap < 20%

The amounts of discard and bycatch data in the trap fisheries are limited. There are no data or regulations available regarding the actual catch of the main bycatch species, which include some ornamental reef fishes: Holacantus ciliaris, Holacanthus tricolor, Pomacanthus paru, Chaetodon striatus, and Bodianus rufus (Feitosa et al. 2008) (Marques and Ferreira 2010), and two elasmobranch species, Aetobatus narinari and Gynglymostoma cirratum (Marques and Ferreira 2010).

BLACK GROUPER

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High

Black grouper is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014) (Begossi et al. 2012) (Fredou et al. 2009). The FishBase vulnerability score is 63 (Froese and Pauly 2015), which corresponds to “high” vulnerability. This species is a protogynous hermaphrodite that has slow growth and late maturity, and forms spawning aggregations, making it more sensitive to overfishing (Crabtree and Bullock 1998) (Freitas, 2014).

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

Black grouper is listed as Vulnerable by the Brazilian National Red List (criteria A2d) (MMA 2014) (ICMBio 2014), although the list is currently suspended by a judicial order. Underwater visual census estimates show low abundances along the Brazilian coast, even in strictly protected areas (ICMBio 2014). Because it is considered a species of concern by the government and its inherent vulnerability is high, we assigned black grouper an abundance score of “high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

The fishing mortality rate (F) for black grouper in Brazil is unknown; however, accentuated population declines were registered in Brazil since the 1970s, due to a directed fishery targeting this species for several decades (ICMBio 2014). It is also fished throughout its range in Brazil, including fisheries targeting large aggregations known as arribadas or correção. It is expected that this species will continue to decline if current threats remain (ICMBio 2014). Because the current F is unknown and there is no specific management for this species, we assign a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Handline < 20%

Live bait captured on prior fishing trips and bait bought in local markets are typically used in this kind of fishery. The main bait species used are the Atlantic thread herring (Opisthonema oglinum), big-eye scad (akule) (Selar crumenophthalmus), and fourwing flyingfish (Hirundichthys affinis) (de Mattos 2004). All bait species have low inherent vulnerability scores (FishBase scores are 24, 26, and 15, respectively) (Froese and Pauly 2015). In Brazil, most handline fisheries target multiple species, with all catch generally kept/landed (not discarded).

Brazil Atlantic, Trap < 20%

CARIBBEAN RED SNAPPER

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High

The Caribbean red snapper is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014) (Begossi et al. 2012) (Fredou et al. 2009). The FishBase vulnerability score for the species is 60 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Caribbean red snapper has low resilience, a long life span, and slow growth, so its vulnerablilty score is “high” (Froese and Pauly 2015) (Souza 2002).

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

The Caribbean red snapper is listed as Vulnerable by the Brazilian National Red List (criteria A2bcd) (MMA 2014) (ICMBio 2014), although the list is currently suspended by a judicial order. The main reason to list this species as Vulnerable is due to a population decrease by 45% within three generations (ICMBio 2014). Because it is considered a species of concern by the government, we designated Caribbean red snapper as “high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

Catches have been reported as collapsed since the late 1980s. The species is currently only exploited on the Northern coast of Brazil, with signs of decline (about 30%), after intense fishing depleted the stock in other parts where it was once abundant (ICMBio 2014). The fishing mortality rate (F) is unknown, but it is thought that overfishing is occurring. There are two specific management regulations for this species: one for minimum catch size and one for spatial/seasonal closures and allowed fishing gears (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). Because there are specific management regulations for this species in an attempt to recover depleted stocks, but their effectiveness is unknown, we assign fishing mortality as “high” concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Handline < 20%

Brazil Atlantic, Trap < 20%

CONEY

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Medium

Coney is a target species for handline fisheries (at various depths) and trap fisheries (in deeper reefs: 30–100 m) in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014) (Leite et al. 2005) (Marques S. 2011). The FishBase vulnerability score for the species is 51 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Coney has a low resilience and is a protogynous hermaphrodite, beginning life as female and changing sex at about 18 cm length, which places the species vulnerability score as “moderate” (Froese and Pauly 2015) (Freitas et al. 2011a) (Marques S. 2011).

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Moderate Concern

One of the highest biomass levels recently recorded for coney in Brazil is 13 kg/100 m², at an oceanic island where fishing pressure on this species is low and may act as an important factor to benefit smaller, non-target species to increase its density/abundance (Coelho et al. 2012). In other coastal areas, the abundance is known to be much lower (Coelho et al. 2012). Because there is no evidence to suggest that coney stock in Brazil is either above or below reference points, and because its inherent vulnerability score is moderate, this species’ abundance is considered as “moderate” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Moderate Concern

The fishing mortality rate (F) was estimated in Pernambuco State at 0.46/year (37%) with a survival rate of 63%, and specimens are mostly captured at 6–11 years of age (Marques S. 2011). Because the species 35

is not of concern based on the most recent assessment made by the Brazilian government (ICMBio 2014), but fishing mortality throughout Brazil is unknown, we consider the species as “moderate” concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Handline < 20%

Brazil Atlantic, Trap < 20%

DOG SNAPPER

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High

Dog snapper is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014) (Begossi et al. 2012) (Fredou et al. 2009). The Fishbase vulnerability score is 66 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Dog snapper has low resilience, medium to high longevity, slow growth, and forms spawning 36

aggregations predictable in space and time, which sets this species vulnerability to “high” (Rezende and Ferreira 2004) (Freitas et al. 2011a) (Froese and Pauly 2015) (França and Olavo 2015).

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

In the past, the biomass of dog snapper was estimated at 2,604 t and approximately 400,000 recruits (Klippel et al. 2005), suggesting that the stock is in decline. Another study (Fredou et al. 2009) came to a similar conclusion of population decline (see Table 5). Because there are no recent studies concerning dog snapper stocks in Brazil, and since the species’ vulnerability score is high, we assign this species a score of “high” concern.

Rationale:

Table 5: Estimates of fishery parameters and target management action based on Fmax for dog snapper (Fredou et al. 2009).

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

The estimates of fishery mortality for dog snapper may vary from 0.002 to 1.042 in different scenarios (Fredou et al. 2009). The estimated parameters for biomass may also vary greatly (see Table 5). Considering the calculated natural mortality M = 0.12, the stock of dog snapper is overexploited or fully 37

exploited in Northeast Brazil (Fredou et al. 2009). Dog snapper is also evaluated as Near Threatened by the Brazilian government due to low abundance and fishing pressure (ICMBio 2014). There is no specific management in place for this species at a national level, and the only gears allowed for snapper fisheries in general are traps and vertical longlines (IBAMA 2011). Because the population is depleted and management restrictions are not species-specific, we assign this species a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.

Rationale: See Table 5 in Factor 2.2 above.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Handline < 20%

Brazil Atlantic, Trap < 20%

GOLIATH

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline High

The Atlantic goliath grouper is a target species for handline fisheries in Brazil (Giglio et al. 2014). The FishBase vulnerability score is 70 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Among some of the life-history characteristics that have been used to assign a “high” vulnerability for this species are a maximum age of 37 years for females and 26 years for males; von Bertalanffy growth parameters: L∞ = 2006 mm TL, k –1 = 0.126y , and t0 = –0.49; age at maturity between 4 and 6 years for males and 6 and 7 for females (Bullock et al 1992).

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline High Concern

Altantic goliath grouper populations have declined significantly, by more than 80%. Goliath grouper is listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN Red List (Craig 2011) (IUCN 2015) and it is listed as Critically Endangered by the Brazilian National Red List (criteria A2bcd) (MMA 2014) (ICMBio 2014), although this list is currently suspended by a judicial order. Based on the high inherent vulnerability and a significant population decline, and considering the status of concern by the government and by the IUCN Red List, we have assigned goliath grouper a score of “high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline High Concern

The fishing mortality rate (F) is unknown for goliath grouper, and even though it is protected in many countries (including Brazil since 2002 through a fishing moratorium (MMA 2012)), this species is still landed through illegal catches, according to official reports (Giglio et al. 2014). In 2015, the fishing moratorium was renewed for another 8 years (MMA 2015), which accounts for a total of 21 years of 39

protection. Considering that the current F is unknown and there is no effective management for this species, we have assigned fishing mortality as “high” concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Handline < 20%

GRAY PARROTFISH

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Trap Low

The gray parrotfish is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Marques and Ferreira 2010) (Ivo et al. 2010). The FishBase vulnerability score is 35 (Froese and Pauly 2015). This species is endemic in Brazil and it has a complex socio-sexual system based on protogynous hermaphroditism (Gaspar 2006) that makes this species have “low” vulnerability to overfishing.

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

Gray parrotfish is an endemic species listed as Vulnerable by the Brazilian National Red List (criteria A3cd) (MMA 2014) (ICMBio 2014), althougth the list is currently suspended by a judicial order. The main reason to list this species as Vulnerable is a population decrease of up to 85% in the last 8 years (ICMBio 40

2014). Because it is considered a species of concern by the government, we assigned gray parrotfish as “high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

The fishing mortality rate (F) rate for gray parrotfish is unknown in Brazil, although this species is caught in many areas, mainly by fishing traps. Among the states of Pernambuco, Paraíba, and Rio Grande do Norte, this type of fishing has increased. In 2003, in Pernambuco and Rio Grande do Norte, catches by 36 boats using traps recorded 36.14 t of Sparisoma spp., especially S. axillare in Pernambuco. Catches are for the international market (export) and in 2008 these increased to 225 t. Declines of over 85% were inferred in several unprotected reef areas in the last 8 years, based on comparisons with fully protected areas, which cover less than 0.1% of the Brazilian reefs (ICMBio 2014).

Based on a generational estimate of about 7 years, local extinctions are predicted in unprotected areas for the next 21 years. Although sharp declines were not observed throughout the distribution, a reduction in the population of at least 40% is projected over the next 21 years if the current fishing pressure continues (ICMBio 2014).

Because current F is unknown and there is no specific management in place for this species at a national level, we assign the species a ranking of “high” concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Trap < 20%

NURSE SHARK

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High

Nurse shark is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Marques and Ferreira 2010). The FishBase vulnerability score is 69 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Some life-history aspects that have been used to assign a “high” vulnerability for this species are: late sexual maturity of females between 223 and 231 cm of TL (representing 86% of their maximum size) and of males at about 214 cm TL (representing 83% of their maximum size), a biennial reproductive cycle, and low number of offsprings (mean of 34 embryos) (Castro 2000).

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

Nurse shark populations declined at least 30% over the last three generations, and it is listed as Vulnerable by the Brazilian National Red List (criteria A2abcd) (MMA 2014) (ICMBio 2014). Based on the high inherent vulnerability, the population decline, and the status of concern by the Brazilian government, we have assigned nurse shark a score of “high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

The fishing mortality rate F for nurse shark is unknown. Considering that the current F is unknown and that there is no effective management for this species, we have assigned a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Handline < 20%

Brazil Atlantic, Trap < 20%

QUEEN TRIGGERFISH

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Medium

Queen triggerfish is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). The FishBase vulnerability score is 54 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Some life-history aspects that have been used to assign a “medium” vulnerability for this species are: a maximum age of 14 years; von –1 Bertalanffy growth parameters of L∞ = 441.3 mm FL, k = 0.14y , and t0 = –1.18; age at maturity between 6 and 8 years (Albuquerque et al 2011); and natural mortality of M = 1.15 (Netto 2009).

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

Queen triggerfish is listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN Red list (Roberts 1996)(IUCN 2015) and as Near Threatened by the Brazilian National Red List (ICMBio 2014). Considering that we do not have evidence to suggest that the abundance of queen triggerfish stock is either above or below reference points, and considering its status of concern by the IUCN Red List and high inherent vulnerability, we designated queen triggerfish as “high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

The fishing mortality rate F for queen triggerfish is unknown. Considering that the current F is unknown and that there is no effective management for this species, we have assigned a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Handline < 20%

Brazil Atlantic, Trap < 20%

RED GROUPER

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High

The red grouper is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). The FishBase vulnerability score is 63 (Froese and Pauly 2015). This species is a protogynous hermaphrodite, and females reach a size at first maturity of L50 = 47 cm TL (Freitas 2014). Maximum age observed was 37 years (Bullock et al. 1992), 30 years (Freitas 2014), and 29 years (SEDAR 2014). The von –1 Bertalanffy growth parameters estimated were: L∞ = 82.9 cm FL, k = 0.13y , t0 = –1.20 (SEDAR 2014); –1 and L∞ = 90.75 cm TL, k = 0.062y , t0 = –4.184 (Freitas 2014). Age at maturity ranged between 7 and 8 years (Freitas, 2014), and age at transition was estimated in 7.2 years (Burgos et al 2007). Therefore, considering these life-history traits, we have assigned a “high” vulnerability score for this species.

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

Red grouper is classified as Near Threatened by the IUCN Red List (Garcia-Moliner & Eklund 2004) (IUCN 2015) and as Vulnerable by the National Red List in Brazil (Criteria A4d) (MMA 2014). Sharp declines were observed in its abundance at three locations along the Brazilian coast (e.g., Pará, Abrolhos Bank, and Rio de Janeiro), inferring a population reduction of 30% (ICMBio 2014). Based on the high inherent 45

vulnerability, the presence of population reduction, and the status of concern by the IUCN Red List and by the Brazilian government, we have assigned a score of “high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

The fishing mortality rate (F) for red grouper is unknown. Considering that the current F is unknown and that there is no effective management for this species, we have assigned a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Handline < 20%

Brazil Atlantic, Trap < 20%

SILK SNAPPER

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High

Silk snapper is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). The FishBase vulnerability score is 68 (Froese and Pauly 2015). The silk snapper has low resilience; matures quickly but has moderate growth rates and can live for over 30 years; and forms schools with other target species, which sets the species vulnerability to “high” (Froese and Pauly 2015) (Safina Center 2014b).

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

In the past, the biomass of silk snapper was estimated at 1,174 t and approximately 1,400,000 recruits (Klippel et al. 2005). There are no recent studies on the abundance status or biomass for silk snapper in Brazil. But the species is listed as Near Threatened by the most recent Brazilian assessment (ICMBio 2014). For this reason, we assign the species a “high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

The stock of silk snapper was regarded as fully exploited in a study performed in 2005 at an important section of the coast for this fishery (Klippel et al. 2005). At that time, the exploitation rate obtained for

Northeast Brazil was ECURRENT = 0.7. There is no specific management in place for this species at a national level, and the only gears allowed for snapper fisheries in general are traps and vertical longlines 47

(IBAMA 2011). Because current F is unknown and there is no specific management for this species, we assign a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Handline < 20%

Brazil Atlantic, Trap < 20%

VERMILION SNAPPER

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Medium

Vermilion snapper is a target species for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). The FishBase vulnerability score is 50 (Froese and Pauly 2015). The vermilion snapper has a medium resilience, slow growth rate, discernible spawning peak, and high longevity (Rodrigues 2011) (Froese and Pauly 2015) (Freitas et al. 2011a), resulting in a “medium” vulnerability score.

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

In the past, the biomass of vermilion snapper was estimated at 1,314 t and approximately 5,100,000 recruits (Klippel et al. 2005). The study also indicated that the stock for this species is in decline. There are no recent studies of biomass for vermilion snapper in Brazil. But, because the species is listed as Near Threatened by the latest national assessment due to intense fishing pressure (ICMBio 2014), we designate this species as “high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

Cumulative fishing pressure for vermilion snapper seems to be too high to recover: the species is widely fished in Brazil, with severely overexploited populations especially in the central coastal region (Klippel et al. 2005). There is no specific management in place for this species at a national level and the only gears allowed for snapper fisheries in general are traps and vertical longlines (IBAMA 2011). Because the population is depleted and management restrictions are not species-specific, we assign this species a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Handline < 20%

Brazil Atlantic, Trap < 20%

YELLOWMOUTH GROUPER

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High

Yellowmouth grouper is a target species in handline and trap fisheries in Brazil (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). The FishBase vulnerability score is 68 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Two aspects of reproduction make this species highly vulnerable to overfishing: protogynous hermaphroditism, and the sex change happens only after 4 years (Bullock and Murphy 1994).

Factor 2.2 - Stock Status

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

Yellowmouth grouper is classified as Vulnerable by the National Red List in Brazil (Criteria A2d+4d) (MMA 2014), although the list is currently suspended by judicial order. This is a naturally rare species. Although a severe population decline was reported for this species off the Brazilian coast since the 1970s, the interpretation of the data is complicated by the fact that all species within the genus Mycteroperca are grouped in fishery statistics (MMA 2014). Because it is considered a species of concern by the government, we designated yellowmouth grouper as “high” concern.

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

The fishing mortality rate (F) rate for yellowmouth grouper in Brazil is unknown; furthermore, it is a naturally rare species. Because the current F is unknown and there is no specific management for this species, we assign a fishing mortality score of “high” concern.

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Brazil Atlantic, Handline < 20%

Brazil Atlantic, Trap < 20%

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness

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 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 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical.

Criterion 3 Summary

Region / Method Management Management Overall of of Recommendation Retained Non-Retained Species Species Brazil Atlantic 1.000 All Species Red(1.000) Handline Retained Brazil Atlantic 1.000 1.000 Red(1.000) Trap

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Scoring Guidelines

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered. • 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’ • 1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘ineffective.’ 52

• 0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.

Factor 3.1 Summary

Factor 3.1: Management of fishing impacts on retained species Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion Brazil Atlantic Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Moderately Handline Effective Brazil Atlantic Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Moderately Trap Effective

Subfactor 3.1.1 – 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? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Ineffective

In general, management strategies are not implemented or enforced for fisheries in Brazil. Handline fisheries occur over the entire Brazilian coast, usually with an offshore limit at the edge of the continental shelf (de Mattos 2004). Traps are most often used in Rio Grande do Norte and Pernambuco (Begossi et al. 2012) (Cunha et al. 2012). Handline and trap fisheries are generally artisanal and registration of the activity is required by the federal government. For the species assessed in this report, there are no size or effort restrictions, seasonal closures, or any other species-specific management strategy. Many fisher villages occur within or nearby Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), commonly in Marine Extractive Reserves or Environmental Protected Areas—both designed by Brazilian law for sustainable use of natural resources. But previous studies suggest that managing reef fisheries within only the existing MPAs (which make up only 2% of the entire Exclusive Economic Zone) (Vila-Nova et al. 2014) may not reverse the current declining trend (Freitas et al. 2011a). Co-management arrangements tend to be the few succcess stories of small-scale fisheries management in Brazil (Seixas et al. 2009), but even in these cases, success depends on the socio-cultural conditions within each community, coupled with their understanding of and compliance with the rules (Freitas et al. 2014). It is also suggested that buffer zones may facilitate establishing both spatial management tools (e.g., new no-take areas covering spawning sites) and temporal management tools (e.g., seasonal closures) (Freitas et al. 2011a) 53

(Freitas et al. 2014). Due to the general lack of controls over reef fish catches for the majority of the Brazilian coast (except as described above), management strategy scores as “ineffective.”

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Ineffective

Some of the main species that are retained in handline and trap fisheries are listed as Threatened by the Brazilian National Red List (Sparisoma frondosum and S. axillare, Mycteroperca bonaci and M. interstilialis, Epinephelus itajara and E. morio, Lutjanus purpureus, Ginglymostoma cirratum, and Balistes vetula), and the remainder are listed as Near Threatened by the same assessment (MMA 2014) (ICMBio 2014). The list is currently suspended by a judicial order, so these species remain without any specific regulations for stock recovery. Due to the lack of recovery plans for these overfishing and threatened species, recovery of stocks scores as “ineffective.”

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status.

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Ineffective

Scientific research and monitoring have been carried throughout the coast, mainly by academics, and are usually not performed to guide fisheries management. Government-led research has taken place in the past (IBAMA 2006), but it has not been updated. Very recently (i.e., in less than a year), community- based initiatives such as socioeconomic monitoring (SocMon) and local monitoring systems have started to be implemented in coastal communities along the coast (ICMBio 2015), some with the support of scientific research (Fish Forever 2014). But at this point, this type of monitoring is only in its early stages and the first results will be local. Despite these scarce initiatives, basic information for the majority of 54

reef fish species targeted by these fisheries is unavailable. Fisheries statistics are also not reliable. Scientific research and monitoring scores as “ineffective” because data collection is minimal and insufficient.

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Ineffective

There are no specific catch limits set by management agencies for the assessed species. These species have severely declined over the past years, mainly due to unmonitored fisheries (ICMBio 2014), and scientific advice recommends that these species need to be managed in a precautionary way. There has been no systematic research to inventory fishery resources or to provide scientific advice to management on an annual basis (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). But quite recently (September 2015), a partnership between the Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture established four permanent management committees to provide scientific advice to foster long-term fisheries policies at a national level (MPA 2015). This was an optimistic scenario, but later in the year the Ministry of Fisheries was extinguished, returning this matter to uncertainty. Because of that, we will score scientific advice as “ineffective” at this point. With the re-establishment and further development of policies from these committees and compliance, we assume that this score will soon be changed.

Subfactor 3.1.5 – 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.

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Ineffective

Enforcement and monitoring for handline and trap fisheries in Brazil can be considered inadequate because it is usually carried out only in limited locations (i.e., within MPAs—see (ICMBio 2015) (Fish Forever 2014)) while being absent in most parts of the coast (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). Due to the lack of enforcement over large portions of the coast, enforcement scores as “ineffective.”

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime.

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Ineffective

Official statistics are available only until 2011; however, since 2007, industrial and artisanal landings data have been combined on the reports (Bezerra and Godelman 2014). There is proof of incorrect estimates and uncertain extrapolations with these data, making them unreliable (Isaac et al. 2008). Recent initiatives for managing and monitoring small-scale fisheries in Brazil include SocMon and self- monitoring, which are being applied in Marine Extractive Reserves and other Sustainable Use Marine Protected Areas in Brazil (ICMBio 2015) (Fish Forever 2014). These are specific protocols established by the Brazilian environmental agency that promotes participatory monitoring involving local fishers. Although measures are in place, they have not been there long enough (< 1 year) to evaluate their effectiveness. Previous studies support the success of co-management for small-scale fisheries in Brazil (Seixas et al. 2009). But the management within these MPAs contributes to the protection of only a small portion of the stock. Other management measures (e.g., no-take Marine Protected Areas and size limits) have not significantly contributed to recovery of stocks at a national level. Because of these constraints, track record scores as “ineffective.” With the development of the above initiatives and consistent results, we can anticipate that this score can improve.

Subfactor 3.1.7 – 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 and includes stakeholder input.

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap Moderately Effective

Small-scale fishers are becoming progressively more involved in the process of establishing policies for fisheries in Brazil (CONFREM 2015). Several organizations that advocate for fisheries territorial use rights are gaining force and voice to promote bottom-up governance (e.g., Fish Forever 2014). Participatory approaches to management in some Extractive Reserves and other Sustainable Use MPAs, including the establishment of catch and effort limitations, settting no-take zones in spawning 56

sites, and temporal closures, have also been suggested (Freitas et al. 2011a). Stakeholder engagement scores as “moderately effective” because inclusion efforts are underway.

Bycatch Strategy

Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species Region / Method All Kept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce Brazil Atlantic Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Handline Brazil Atlantic No No Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Trap

Subfactor 3.2.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place to minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).

Brazil Atlantic, Trap Ineffective

Bycatch management strategy and implementation score as “ineffective” because no specific bycatch management measures are available for trap fisheries.

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met.

Brazil Atlantic, Trap Ineffective

This subcriterion is scored as “ineffective” because there is no regular collection or analysis of data, or significant scientific research support.

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

Brazil Atlantic, Trap Ineffective

We attribute the same score as in Subfactor 3.1.4 in the Harvest Strategy section.

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management regulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

Brazil Atlantic, Trap Ineffective

We attribute the same score as Subfactor 3.1.5 in the Harvest Strategy section.

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 (plus the mitigation of gear impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management 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 cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Region / Method Gear Type and Mitigation of EBFM Overall Recomm. Substrate Gear Impacts Brazil Atlantic 4.00:Very Low 0.25:Minimal 2.00:High Yellow (2.916) Handline Concern Mitigation Concern Brazil Atlantic 3.00:Low 0.25:Minimal 2.00:High Yellow (2.550) Trap Concern Mitigation Concern

Justification of Ranking

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

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (None)—Fishing gear does not contact the bottom • 4 (Very Low)—Vertical line gear • 3 (Low)—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. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally ( • 2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand • 1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder) • 0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) 59

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.

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Very Low Concern

Even though handlines typically do not contact the bottom, there are possible impacts from boats’ anchors on the reefs (Freitas et al. 2011a) (Renan et al. 2014). Therefore, this gear type scores as “very low” concern rather than none.

Brazil Atlantic, Trap Low Concern

Snapper species (L. synagris, L. analis, and O. chrysurus) are mainly caught with trap gear in Northeastern Brazil (Lessa et al. 2004) (Ribeiro 2004) (Fredou et al. 2006) (Marques and Ferreira 2010) (Carvalho et al. 2013). This fishery occurs on the seafloor of rocky bottom and coral reefs in the northern coast of Pernambuco (Marques and Ferreira 2010) and in the state of Rio Grande do Norte (Carvalho et al. 2013). There is localized impact from boat anchors on the reefs because fishers anchor their boats over them.

Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Scoring Guidelines

• +1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures. • +0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing. • +0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced. • 0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats.

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Minimal Mitigation

Despite the fact that the handline fishery is seen as a low-impact activity to the benthos, target species in Brazil are facing overexploitation (Bender et al. 2013) (Burda and Schiavetti 2008) (IBAMA 2006). Although Marine Protected Areas are low in number along the Brazilian coastline (currently making up 60

only 2% of the entire Exclusive Economic Zone (Vila-Nova et al. 2014)), they have been shown to improve fish stocks when enforcement exists (Floeter et al. 2006), particularly in no-take MPAs (less than 0.2% of EEZ (Vila-Nova et al. 2014)). The MPAs that do exist are aimed to recover overexploited stocks, not to mitigate against gear impacts to the benthos. Mitigation of gear impacts scores as “minimal.”

Brazil Atlantic, Trap Minimal Mitigation

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) represent 2% of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the Brazilian coast, which includes no-take reserves (Vila-Nova et al. 2014), and are closed to all fisheries (Floeter et al. 2006), including trap fishing gear. These efforts have reduced the spatial footprint of fisheries in these protected areas; therefore, the trap fishery is deemed to have “minimal” mitigation on the benthic fauna.

Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protected with 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 place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used. • 3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts. • 2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management. • 1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the fishery is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.

Brazil Atlantic, Handline Brazil Atlantic, Trap High Concern

Snappers and groupers are the main targeted species of handline and trap fisheries on the Brazilian Northeast coast. They are a group of exceptionally important species that play an important role in the top-down control of lower trophic-level species on reefs (Arreguin-Sanchez et al. 1996) (Friedlander and DeMartini 2002) (Kramer and Heck 2007). Their removal from the environment may negatively affect ecological processes in the region (Freitas et al. 2011b) and may have significant indirect effects at the ecosystem level (Farmer and Wilson, 2010). Thus, it is possible that reduction of the biomass of snappers can have substantial impacts on the marine ecosystem. Additionally, there is no national policy to regulate catches in this fishery (Bender et al. 2013) (Burda and Schiavetti 2008). Considering the effects of trophic cascades and the detrimental food web impacts that are resulting from the fishery, we assigned a score of “high” concern for this criterion.

Acknowledgements

Seafood Watch® would like to thank Fabio Di Dario of the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Thierry Frédou of the Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, and Matheus Oliveira Freitas of Meros do Brazil Institute for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy and clarity.

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.

References

Burton, M. L. 2002 Age, growth and mortality of mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis, from the east coast of Florida, with a brief discussion of management implications. Fishery research 59 (1-2): 2002.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-4. . Downloaded on 19 November 2015.

Lessa, R., Silva, C.R., Dias, J.F. and Santana, F.M. 2015. Demography of the Agassiz’s parrotfish Sparisoma frondosum (Agassiz, 1831) in north-eastern Brazil. Journal of Marine Biological. doi:10.1017/S0025315415001034

Abdalaha, P.R. and Sumaila, U.R. 2007. An historical account of Brazilian public policy on fisheries subsidies. Marine Policy, 31.

Allen G.R. 1985. Snappers of the world: An annotated and illustrated catalogue of Lutjanid species know to date. FAO Fish. Synop., Rome.

Araujo J.N., Martins A.S., and Costa K.G. 2002. Age and growth of yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus, from central coast of Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 50, 47-57.

Arreguin-Sanchez F., Munro J.L., Balgos M. and Pauly D. 1996. Biology, fisheries and culture of tropical groupers and snappers. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 48, 449 p.

Idade, crescimento e mortalidade do Ariocó Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus, 1758) capturado pela frota artesanal no Banco dos Abrolhos. Dissertação de Mestrado, UESC, Ilhéus.

Atum do Brasil. 2015. http://www.atumdobrasil.com.br/produtos.php

Ávila-da-Silva A. O., Carneiro M. H., and Fagundes L. 1999. Sistema gerenciador de banco de dados de controle estatístico de produção pesqueira marítima – ProPesq. Anais do XI Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia de Pesca e I Congresso Latino- americano de Engenharia de Pesca 2, 824-832.

Batista C.H.O., Camargo G.M.B., Oliveira P.G.V., Pinheiro P.B., Fernandes C.A., Travassos P., Hazin, F.H.V. 2012. Occurrence of the hybrid snapper between yellowtail snapper Ocyurus chrysurus (Bloch 1791) and lane snapper Lutjanus synagris (Linnaeus 1758) (Perciformes: Lutjanidae) in the Southwest Atlantic, Northeast Brazi. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 7, 45-49.

Begossi A., Salivonchyk S.V., Araujo L.G., Andreoli T.B., Clauzet M., Martinelli, C.M., Ferreira A.G.L., Oliveira L.E.C. and Silvano R.A.M. 2011. Ethnobiology of snappers (Lutjanidae) target species and suggestions for management. J Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 7, 1.

Begossi A., Lopes P.F.M. and Silvano R.A.M. 2012. Co-Management of Reef Fisheries of the Snapper- Grouper Complex in a Human Ecological Context in Brazil. In: G.H. Kruse, H.I. Browman, K.L. Cochrane, D. 64

Evans, G.S. Jamieson, P.A. Livingston, D. Woodby, and C.I. Zhang (eds.), Global Progress in Ecosystem- Based Fisheries Management. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Bender M., Floeter S., and Hanazaki N. 2013. Do traditional fishers recognise reef fish species declines? Shifting environmental baselines in Eastern Brazil. Fisheries Management and Ecology 20, 58–67.

Bezerra R.C.A. and Godelman, E. 2014. As Pescarias de Vermelhos no Brasil: Caraterísticas, estado dos estoques e sugestões para melhorar a gestão. CeDePesca.

Bressan P.M., Kierulff M.C.M. and Sugieda A.M. 2009. Fauna ameaçada de extinção no estado de São Paulo: Vertebrados. São Paulo: Fundação Parque Zoológico de São Paulo: Secretaria do Meio Ambiente.

Bugoni L., Neves T.S., Leite N.O., Carvalho D., Sales G., Furness R.W., Stein C.E., Peppes F.V., Giffoni B.B. and Monteiro D.S. 2008. Potential bycatch of seabirds and turtles in hook-and-line fisheries of the Itaipava fleet, Brazil. Fisheries Research 90, 217-224.

Bullock L.H. and Murphy M.D. 1994. Aspects of the life history of the yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca interstitialis, in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science, 55(1), 30-45.

Burda C.L. and Schiavetti A. 2008. Análise ecológica da pesca artesanal em quatro comunidades pesqueiras da Costa de Itacaré, Bahia, Brasil: Subsídios para a Gestão Territorial. Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada 8(2), 149-168.

Campos P.N., de Castro M.S., and Bonecker A.C.T. 2010. Occurrence and distribution of Carangidae larvae (Teleostei, Perciformes) from the Southwest Atlantic Ocean, Brazil (12-23 degrees S). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 26(6), 920-924.

Carvalho R.A.A., Cunha F.E.A., Montezuma A.M.N., Araújo M.E. 2013. Captura e processamento de peixes recifais no estado do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil. Actapesca 1(1), 91-103.

Cavalcanti E.T.S., Takemoto R.M., Alves L.C. and Chellappa S. 2010. First record of endoparasite Philometra sp. (Nematoda: Philometridae) in lane snapper Lutjanus synagris from the coast of Rio Grande do Norte Brazil. Marine Biodiversity Records 93(3), 1 - 4.

Cervigón F. 1993. Los Peces Marinos de Venezuela. Fundación Los Roques. Volumen II. Caracas, Venezuela. 497 p.

Cetra M. and Petrere M. 2014. Seasonal and annual cycles in marine small-scale fisheries (Ilheus – Brazil). Fisheries Management and Ecology 21, 244–249.

Cheung W.W.L., Pitcher T.J. and Pauly D. 2005. A fuzzy logic expert system to estimate intrinsic extinction vulnerabilities of marine fishes to fishing. Biol. Conserv. 124,97-111.

Coelho F.N., Pinheiro H.T., Santos R.G., Albuquerque C.Q. and Martins A.S. 2012. Spatial distribution and diet of Cephalopholis fulva (Ephinephelidae) at Trindade Island, Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology, 10(2), 383-388 65

CONFREM. 2015. Comissão Nacional de Fortalecimento das Reservas Extrativistas e Povos Tradicionais Extrativistas Costeiros e Marinhos

Coni E.O.C, Ferreira C.M., Moura R.M., Meirelles P.M., Kaufman L. and Francini-Filho R. 2013. An evaluation of the use of branching fire-corals (Millepora spp.) as refuge by reef fish in the Abrolhos Bank, eastern Brazil. Environmental biology of fishes 96(1), 45-55.

Costa P.A.S., Braga A.D. and da Rocha L.O.F. 2003. Reef fisheries in Porto Seguro, Eastern Brazilian coast. Fisheries Research 60, 577–583.

Crabtree R.E. and Bullock L.H. 1998. Age, growth and reproduction of black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci, in Florida waters. Fishery Bulletin 96 (4).

Cunha F.E.A., Carvalho R.A.A. and Araújo M.E. 2012. Exportation of reef fish for human consumption: long-term analysis using data from Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. Bol. Inst. Pesca, São Paulo 38(4), 369- 378. da Silva R., Veneza I., Sampaio I., Araripe J., Schneider H. and Gomes G. 2015. High Levels of Genetic Connectivity among Populations of Yellowtail Snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus (Lutjanidae – Perciformes), in the Western South Atlantic Revealed through Multilocus Analysis. PLoS ONE 10(3). de Mattos S.M.G. 2004. A bioeconomic analysis of the coastal fishery of Pernambuco state, North- Eastern Brazil. Phd Thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya. 293 p. de Mattos S.M.G., and Maynou F. 2009. Virtual population analysis of two snapper species, Lutjanus analis and Lutjanus chrysurus, caught off Pernambuco State, north-eastern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 57, 229-242.

Dias-Neto J. 2011. Proposta de Plano Nacional de Gestão para o uso sustentável de elasmobrânquios sobre-explotados ou ameaçados de sobre-explotação no Brasil / José Dias Neto, Organizador. – Brasília: Ibama.

Diedhiou, M., Ferreira, B.P. and Rezende, S.M. 2004. Idade e crescimento da guaiúba, Lutjanus chrysurus (Bloch, 1791), na costa nordeste do Brasil. Arq. Ciên. Mar Fortaleza, 37: 39-52

Diehdhiou M. 2000. Aspectos biológicos da guaiúba Lutjanus chrysurus Bloch, 1791 (Perciformes: Lutjanidae) na costa nordeste do Brasil: idade, cresimento, morfometria e pesca. MSc thesis, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.

Duarte L.O. and Garcia C.B. 1999. Diet of the lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris (Lutjanidae), in the Gulf of Salamanca, Colombia. Caribbean Journal of Science 35, 54–63.

Food and Drug Administration. 2015. The Seafood List: FDA's Guide to Acceptable Market Names for Seafood sold in Interstate Commerce. 66

Feitosa C.V., Ferreira B.P., and Araújo M.E. 2008. A rapid newmethod for assessing sustainability of ornamental fish by-catch from coral reefs. Marine and Freshwater Research 59, 1092–1100.

Feitoza B.M., Rosa R.S., and Rocha L.A. 2005. Ecology and zoogeography of deep reef fishes in northeastern Brazil. Bulletin of Marine Science 76, 725-742.

Ferreira B.P., Rezende S.M., Teixeira S.F. and Frédou T. 2004. Sinopse Idade, Crescimento, Mortalidade, Reprodução e Avaliação de Estoques de Lutjanus chrysurus

Fish Forever. 2014. http://www.fishforever.org/where/brazil/

Floeter S.R., Halpern B.S. and Ferreira C.E.L. 2006. Effects of fishing and protection on Brazilian reef fishes. Biological Conservation 128, 391-402.

França A.R. and Olavo G. 2015. Indirect signals of spawning aggregations of three commercial reef fish species on the continental shelf of Bahia, east coast of Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography 63(3):289-302

Francini-Filho, R. B. and Moura, R. L. 2008. Evidence for spillover of reef fishes from a no-take marine reserve: An evaluation using the before-after control-impact (BACI) approach. Fisheries Research 93 (2008) 346–356.

Francini-Filho R., Fonesca J., Sala E. and Menezes N. 2004. Ecology and conservation of reef fish spawning aggregations in the Abrolhos Bank, Brazil. BP Conservation Programme, Final Report. 59 p.

Fredou, T. and Ferreira, B.P. 2005. Bathymetric trends of North- eastern Brazilian snappers (Pisces, Lutjanidae): Implications for the reef fishery dynamic. Braz. Arch. Biol. Tech., 48, 787-800.

Fredou T., Ferreira B.P. and Letourneur Y. 2006. A univariate and multivariate study of reef fisheries off northeastern Brazil. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63, 883-896

Fredou T., Ferreira B.P. and Letourneur Y. 2009. Assessing the stocks of the primary snappers caught in northeastern Brazil reef systems 1. Traditional modeling approaches. Fisheries Research 99, 90-95.

Frehse F.A. 2006. Estrutura da População de três espécies da família Clupeidae: Harengulll clupeola, Opisthonema oglinum e Sardinella brasiliensis, no Complexo Estuarino de Paranaguá, Paraná. BSc monograph. Universidade Federal do Paraná

Freitas M.O. 2009. Pesca artesanal e biologia reprodutiva do ariocó Lutjanus synagris (Lutjanidae) no banco dos Abrolhos. MSc dissertation. Santa Cruz State University. 116p.

Freitas M.O., Moura R.L., Francini-Filho R.B. and Minte-Vera C.V. 2011. Spawning patterns of commercially important reef fish (Lutjanidae and Serranidae) in the tropical western South Atlantic. Scientia Marina 75, 135-146.

Freitas M.O., Abilhoa V., Silva G.H.C. 2011. Feeding ecology of Lutjanus analis (Teleostei: Lutjanidae) from Abrolhos Bank, Eastern Brazil. Neotrop. ichthyol. 9(2 ), 411-418. 67

Freitas MO, Rocha GRA, Chaves PTC, Moura RL 2014. Reproductive biology of the lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris, and recommendations for its management on the Abrolhos Shelf, Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 94(8): 1711-1720.

Freitas, M. O. 2014. AUTO-ECOLOGIA DE Epinephelus morio E Mycteroperca bonaci: EPINEFELÍDEOS COMERCIALMENTE IMPORTANTES E AMEAÇADOS NO BANCO DOS ABROLHOS. Tese de Doutorado. UFPR, Curitiba.

Friedlander A.M. and DeMartini E.E. 2002. Contrasts in density, size, and biomass of reef fishes between the northwestern and the main Hawaiian islands: the effects of fishing down apex predators. Marine Ecology Progress Series 230, 253-264.

Froese R. and Pauly D. (Editors). 2015. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version (02/2015).

Gaspar A. L. B. 2006. Idade, crescimento e padrões de recrutamento do bobó Sparisoma axillare, a APA Costa dos Corais. Dissertação de mestrado, UFPE, Recife.

Giglio V.J., Bertoncinib A.A., Ferreira B.P., Hostim-Silva M. and Freitas M.O. 2014. Landings of goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara, in Brazil: despite prohibited over ten years, fishing continues. Natureza e conservação. 12(2),118–123.

Huntsman G. 1996. Lutjanus analis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. . Downloaded on 07 May 2015

IBAMA. 2006. Programa REVIZEE: avaliação do potencial sustentável de recursos vivos na zona econômica exclusiva: relatório executivo/MMA, SQA, BRAZIL, 208p.

IBAMA. 2011. Instrução Normativa Interministerial nº 10, de 10 de Junho de 2011.

ICMBio. 2013. Portaria ICMBio Nº 179, de 12 de Abril de 2013

ICMBio. 2014. Avaliação do Risco de Extinção - Peixes Marinhos. http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/biodiversidade/fauna-brasileira/estado-de-conservacao/2745-peixes- marinhos.html

ICMBio. 2014a. Avaliação do Risco de Extinção - Peixes Marinhos. http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/biodiversidade/fauna-brasileira/lista-de-especies-dados- insuficientes.html

ICMBio. 2015. ICMBio participa de curso sobre monitoramento socieconômico e biológico. ICMBio em Foco 335, 12-13.

ICMBio. 2015a. Peixes - Epinephelus itajara (Lictenstein, 1822) - Mero

Isaac V.J., Santo R.V.E., Nunes J.L.G. 2008. A estatística pesqueira no litoral do Pará: resultados divergentes. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 3: 205-213. 68

Ivo C.T.C., Vasconcelos J.A. and Osório F.M. 2010. Pesca de peixe com covos no estado do Rio Grande do Norte. Bol. Téc. Cient. CEPENE 18(1), 75-85.

Klippel S., Olavo G., Costa P.A.S., Martins P.A.S. and Peres M.B. 2005. Avaliação dos estoques de lutjanídeos da costa central do Brasil: análise de coortes e modelo preditivo de Thompson e Bell para comprimentos, p. 83-98. In: Costa P.A.S., Martins A.S., Olavo G. (orgs.). Pesca e potenciais de exploração de recursos vivos na região central da Zona Econômica Exclusiva brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional (Série Livros, 13), 83-98.

Kramer K.L. and Heck Jr K.L. 2007. Top-down trophic shifts in Florida Keys patch reef marine protected areas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 349, 111-123.

Laporta M., Miller P., Horta H. and Riestra G. 2006. First report of leatherback turtle entanglement in trap lines in the Uruayan continental shelf. Marine Turtle Newsletter 112, 9-11.

Leite N.O.J., Martins A.S. and Araújo J.N. 2005. Idade e crescimento de peixes recifais na região central da Zona Econômica Exclusiva entre Salvador e o cabo de São Tomé-RJ (13°S a 22°S). In: Costa P.A.S., Martins A.S, Olavi G. (Eds.) Pesca e potenciais de exploração de recursos vivos na região central da Zona Econômica Exclusiva brasileira. (Serie livros n.13). Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional, 203-216.

Lessa R.P., Nóbrega M.F. and Bezerra-Júnior J.L. 2004. Dinâmica de Populações e Avaliação de Estoques dos Recursos Pesqueiros da Região Nordeste, Volume II. Recife. 274 p.

Lino M.A.S. 2003. Estudo biológico-pesqueiro da manjuba Opisthonema oglinum (Lesueur, 1818) da região de Itapissuma, Pernambuco. BSc monograph, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco.

Mariano E.F. and Rosa R.S. 2010. Caracterização da pesca artesanal no litoral da Paraíba. Bol. Téc. Cient. CEPENE 18(1), 61-74.

Marques S. and Ferreira B.P. 2010. Composição e características da pesca de armadilhas no litoral norte de Pernambuco - Brasil. Bol. Téc. Cient. CEPENE 18(1), 49-60.

Marques S. 2011. Reprodução, idade e crescimento de três espécies da família Epinephelidae no litoral de Pernambuco. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, PhD thesis. 164p.

Martins C. 2006. O Mercado Norte-americano de Pescados e Frutos do Mar. American Chamber of Commerce for Brazil.

Matos, R.M.G and Araújo, M.E. 2007. BIOLOGIA REPRODUTIVA DO PRINCIPAL PEIXE ORNAMENTAL MARINHO, Holacanthus ciliaris (Actinopterygii), EXPORTADO PELO BRASIL. XV Congresso de Iniciação Científica da UFPE.

Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2004. Instrução Normativa nº 5, de 21 de Maio de 2004.

Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2005. Instrução Normativa N.º 52, de 8 de Novembro de 2005. 69

Ministério Meio Ambiente. 2006. Avaliação do Potencial Sustentável de Recursos Vivos na Zona Econômica Exclusiva - Relatório Executivo. Brasilia. 303 p.

Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2014. Portaria MMA nº 445. Anexo I. Brasília

Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 2015. Portarias Interministeriais nº 13 e nº 14/2015.

Monteiro-Neto C., Cunha F.E.A., Nottingham M.C., Araújo M.E., RosaI.L., and Barros G.M.L. 2003. Analysis of the marine ornamental fish trade at Ceará State, northeast Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 1287–1295.

Moura R. L., Dutra G. F., Francini-Filho R. B., Minte-Vera C. V., Curado I.B., Guimarães F.J., Oliveira R.F. and Alves D. C. 2007. Fisheries management in the Marine Extractive Reserve of Corumbau, Bahia. In Aquatic Protected Areas as Fisheries Management Tools. Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília, 175– 187.

Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura. 2011. Boletim Estatístico da Pesca e Aquicultura. Brasília.

Ministério da Pesca e Aquicultura. 2015. CPGs inauguram novo tempo no setor pesqueiro do Brasil.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2015. Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division: Snappers imports - Brazil

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES STATISTICS - FISHERIES OF THE UNITED STATES, 2013

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2015. NOAA FISHWATCH - U.S. SEAFOOD FACTS. http://www.fishwatch.gov/wild_seafood/outside_the_us.htm

Noronha Pescados. 2015. http://www.noronhapescados.com.br/produtos

Pimentel C. R. and Joyeux J. C. 2010. Diet and food partitioning between juveniles of mutton Lutjanus analis, dog Lutjanus jocu and lane Lutjanus synagris snappers (Perciformes: Lutjanidae) in a mangrove- fringed estuarine environment. Journal of Fish Biology (2010) 76, 2299–2317.

Produmar. 2015. http://www.produmar.ind.br/produtos.php

Renan X., Trejo-Martínez J., Caballero-Arango D. and Brulé T. 2014. Growth stanzas in an Epinephelidae- Lutjanidae complex. Rev. Biol. Trop. (Int. J. Trop. Biol. ISSN-0034-7744) 63(1), 175-187.

Resende S.M., Ferreira B.P. and Fredou T. 2003. A pesca de lutjanídeos no nordeste do Brasil: histórico das pescarias, características das espécies e relevância para o manejo. Bol. Técn. Cient. CEPENE, 11(1), 257 - 270.

Rezende S.M. and Ferreira B.P.2004. Age, growth and mortality of dog snapper Lutjanus jocu (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) in the northeast coast of Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography, 51(2): 107-121. 70

Ribeiro F.P. 2004. Composição da biocenose e abundância relativa de peixes capturados com covos nos Estados do Rio Grande do Norte e Pernambuco. Boletim Técnico Científico do CEPENE 12, 113–128.

Rodrigues V.L.A. 2011. Dieta e aspectos reprodutivos de Rhomboplites aurorubens (Teleostei, Lutjanidae) na costa central do Brasil. Bachelor monograph. UFES.

Roos D., Roux O. and Conand F. 2007. Notes on the biology of the bigeye scad, Selar crumenophthalmus (Carangidae) around Reunion Island, southwest Indian Ocean. Scientia Marina 71(1), 137-144.

Safina Center. 2014a. Yellowtail snapper - Brazil: full species report.

Safina Center. 2014b.Silk snapper - full species report

Sampaio, F.D.F. and Ostrensky, A. 2013. Brazilian environmental legislation as tool to conserve marine ornamental fish. Marine Policy 42, 280–285.

Santa Inês Pescados. 2015.http://www.santainespescados.com.br/interna.php?cod=41463

Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR). 2008. SEDAR 15A stock assessment report 3 (SAR 3) South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico mutton snapper. Charleston, SC. 410 p.

Seixas C.S., Minte-Vera C.V., Ferreira R.G., Moura R.L., Curado I.B., Pezzuti J., Thé A.P.G. and Francini- Filho R.B. 2009. Co-managing commons: Advancing Aquatic Resources Management in Brazil. In: P. Lopes and A. Begossi (eds.), Current Trends in Human Ecology, pp. 156-182. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Northumberland.

Smith J.W. 1994. Biology and Fishery for Atlantic Thread Herring, Opisthonema oglinum, along the North Carolina Coast. Marine Fisheries Review, 56(4), 1-7.

Souza R.F.C. 2002. Dinâmica populacional do Pargo, Lutjanus purpureus Poey, 1875 (Pisces: Lutjanidae) na plataforma norte do Brasil. Master Dissertation.

Souza J.M. and Clistenes A. 2011. Estudos Reprodutivos em espécies de peixes de importância comercial da Baía de Todos os Santos. XV Semana de Iniciação Científica da Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana.

Teixeira S.F. 2004. Análise das incertezas das estimativas dos parametros de crescimento e mortalidade utilizados na avaliacao de estoques de peixes recifais no nordeste do Brasil. PhD thesis, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.

Teixeira S. F., Duarte Y. F. and Ferreira B.P. 2010. Reproduction of the fish Lutjanus analis (mutton snapper; Perciformes: Lutjanidae) from Northeastern Brazil. Rev. Biol. Trop. (Int. J. Trop. Biol. ISSN-0034- 7744) Vol. 58 (3), 791-800.

Vaz-dos-Santos A.M., Costa M.R. and Cruvinel C.M. 2013. Análise da ictiofauna capturada em cerco fixo flutuante na Praia de Toque-Toque Pequeno, Litoral Norte do Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. UNISANTA BioScience 2(2), 7-16. 71

Vila-Nova D.A., Ferreira C.E.L., Barbosa F.G. and Floeter S.R. 2014. Reef fish hotspots as surrogates for marine conservation in the Brazilian coast. Ocean & Coastal Management, 102, 88–93.