IFFO RS V2.0 FISHERY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND TEMPLATE REPORT Fishery Under Assessment Ecuador Small Pelagic Date August 2018 Assessor Sam Peacock IFFO RS Ltd, Unit C, Printworks, 22 Amelia Street, London, SE17 3BZ, United Kingdom Application details and summary of the assessment outcome Name: Address: Country: Zip: Tel. No. Fax. No. Email address: Applicant Code Key Contact: Title: Assessment Details Name of Assessment Body: RS Standards Assessor Name Peer Reviewer Assessment Initial/Surveillance/ Whole fish / By- Days Re-approval product Sam Peacock Improver Programme Whole fish Assessment Period March – April 2018 Scope Details Management Authority (Country/State) Ecuador Pacific chub mackerel Frigate tuna Shortfin scad Corbata Main Species Thread herrings Pacific anchoveta (chuhueco) Cornetfish Round herring Roncador Fishery Location Ecuador EEZ Gear Type(s) Purse seine Outcome of Assessment Clauses where improvements or further information M1, M2, A, F1, F3 are required 1 IFFO RS Fishery Assessment Methodology & Template Report Jan 2017 General Results General Clause Outcome (Pass/Gap) M1 - Management Framework PASS M2 - Surveillance, Control and Enforcement PASS F1 - Impacts on ETP Species GAP F2 - Impacts on Habitats PASS F3 - Ecosystem Impacts GAP Note: This table should be completed for whole fish assessments only. Species-Specific Results Category Species % landings Outcome (Pass/Gap) A1 GAP A2 GAP Pacific chub mackerel 31.4% A3 GAP A4 GAP Frigate tuna 18.4% Shortfin scad 12.6% Category A Corbata 10.8% Thread herrings 8.6% GAP – see notes Pacific anchoveta (chuhueco) 6.5% Cornetfish 2.8% Round herring 2.7% Roncador 1% Category B Optional – see section B Category C Jack mackerel 0.3% PASS Longnose anchovy 0.7% PASS Category D Pacific harvestfish 0.5% PASS Drums 0.4% PASS 2 IFFO RS Fishery Assessment Methodology & Template Report Jan 2017 HOW TO COMPLETE THIS ASSESSMENT REPORT This assessment template uses a modular approach to assessing fisheries against the IFFO RS standard. Whole Fish The process for completing the template for a whole fish assessment is as follows: 1. ALL ASSESSMENTS: Complete the Species Characterisation table, to determine which categories of species are present in the fishery. 2. ALL ASSESSMENTS: Complete clauses M1, M2, M3: Management. 3. IF THERE ARE CATEGORY A SPECIES IN THE FISHERY: Complete clauses A1, A2, A3, A4 for each Category A species. 4. IF THERE ARE CATEGORY B SPECIES IN THE FISHERY: Complete the Section B risk assessment for each Category B species. 5. IF THERE ARE CATEGORY C SPECIES IN THE FISHERY: Complete clause C1 for each Category C species. 6. IF THERE ARE CATEGORY D SPECIES IN THE FISHERY: Complete Section D. 7. ALL ASSESSMENTS: Complete clauses F1, F2, F3: Further Impacts. A fishery must score a pass in all applicable clauses before approval may be recommended. To achieve a pass in a clause, the fishery/species must meet all of the minimum requirements. By-products The process for completing the template for by-product raw material is as follows: 1. ALL ASSESSMENTS: Complete the Species Characterisation table with the names of the by- product species and stocks under assessment. The ‘% landings’ column can be left empty; all by-products are considered as Category C and D. 2. IF THERE ARE CATEGORY C BYPRODUCTS UNDER ASSESSMENT: Complete clause C1 for each Category C by-product. 3. IF THERE ARE CATEGORY D BYPRODUCTS UNDER ASSESSMENT: Complete Section D. 4. ALL OTHER SECTIONS CAN BE DELETED. Clauses M1 - M3, F1 - F3, and Sections A and B do not need to be completed for a by-product assessment. By-product approval is awarded on a species-by-species basis. Each by-product species scoring a pass under the appropriate section may be approved against the IFFO RS Standard. 3 IFFO RS Fishery Assessment Methodology & Template Report Jan 2017 SPECIES CATEGORISATION The following table should be completed as fully as the available information permits. Any species representing more than 0.1% of the annual catch should be listed, along with an estimate of the proportion of the catch each species represents. The species should then be divided into Type 1 and Type 2 as follows: Type 1 Species can be considered the ‘target’ or ‘main’ species in the fishery. They make up the bulk of annual landings and are subjected to a detailed assessment. Type 2 Species can be considered the ‘bycatch’ or ‘minor’ species in the fishery. They make up a small proportion of the annual landings and are subjected to relatively high-level assessment. Type 1 Species must represent 95% of the total annual catch. Type 2 Species may represent a maximum of 5% of the annual catch (see Appendix B). Species which make up less than 0.1% of landings do not need to be listed (NOTE: ETP species are considered separately). The table should be extended if more space is needed. Discarded species should be included when known. The ‘stock’ column should be used to differentiate when there are multiple biological or management stocks of one species captured by the fishery. The ‘management’ column should be used to indicate whether there is an adequate management regime specifically aimed at the individual species/stock. In some cases it will be immediately clear whether there is a species-specific management regime in place (for example, if there is an annual TAC). In less clear circumstances, the rule of thumb should be that if the species meets the minimum requirements of clauses A1-A4, an adequate species-specific management regime is in place. NOTE: If any species is categorised as Endangered or Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List, or if it appears in the CITES appendices, it cannot be approved for use as an IFFO RS raw material. This applied to whole fish as well as by-products. 4 IFFO RS Fishery Assessment Methodology & Template Report Jan 2017 TYPE 1 SPECIES (Representing 95% of the catch or more) Category A: Species-specific management regime in place. Category B: No species-specific management regime in place. TYPE 2 SPECIES (Representing 5% OF THE CATCH OR LESS) Category C: Species-specific management regime in place. Category D: No species-specific management regime in place. Common name Latin name Stock % of landings Management Category Pacific chub Scomber japonicus 31.4% Some A or B mackerel Frigate tuna Auxis brachydorax 18.4% A or B Decapterus Shortfin scad 12.6% A or B macrosoma Corbata Trichuuris lepturus 10.8% A or B Thread herrings Opisthonema spp 8.6% A or B Pacific Cetengraulis anchoveta 6.5% A or B mysticetus (chuhueco) Cornetfish Fistularia spp 2.8% A or B Etrumeus Round herring 2.7% A or B acuminatus Maemulopsis Roncador 1% A or B axillaris Longnose Anchoa nasus 0.7% No D anchovy Pacific Peprilus medius 0.5% No D harvestfish Drums Larimus spp 0.4% No D Jack mackerel Trachurus murphyi 0.3% Yes C Categorisation Note: Percentage of landings is calculated as an estimate of the average prevalence in the catch 2012 – 2016. Catch composition shifted substantially in 2012 due to a change in gear regulations. As the new gear regulation is expected to remain in place, the new catch composition is considered the most relevant. See Improver Programme Note 1 for more details. Improver Programme Note 1: The IFFO RS fishery assessment process begins with the categorisation of species caught in the fishery using the methodology described above. Full landings data were provided by the applicant breaking the catch down by species or genus for the period 2004 – 2016. However, it was also reported by the applicant that in 2012 a new regulation came into force which increased the minimum mesh size for Ecuadorian purse seiners, resulting in a substantial change in the catch composition in the fishery. For this reason, the categorisation of landings for the purposes of this assessment has used an average of 5 IFFO RS Fishery Assessment Methodology & Template Report Jan 2017 the landings between 2012 and 2016. There is considerable variation between years and so it is likely that the IFFO RS species list will change over time. Improver Programme Note 2: This assessment uses the IFFO RS methodology to determine which species are subjected to assessment. There are several other species which have historically seen some small landings in the fishery, but have not been present in significant numbers in recent years. If these species begin to re-appear in the catch, it is possible that they will exceed the 0.1% minimum proportion which will require them to be included in the assessment. 6 IFFO RS Fishery Assessment Methodology & Template Report Jan 2017 Background Section 1.1 Overview of the fishery The Ecuadorian small pelagic fishery is economically and socially important for the country. Industrial fishing began in the 1950s, but only began to grow into a substantial activity in the 1970s. Total reported landings reached a peak of nearly 1 million tonnes in the mid-1980s, but in recent years have generally fluctuated between 200,000-300,000t. Catch is heavily influenced by oceanographic and environmental variables, both in terms of total volume but also catch composition. There is extensive evidence to indicate that there is high natural variability in the relative sizes of the stocks targeted by the fishery, and therefore their relative prevalence in landings. Natural variability also affects whether certain species occur in the catch at all. De la Cuadra (2010) point out that in front of the Equator, the small pelagic fish species landed by the industrial fleet are strongly influenced by the short-term thermal changes that occur in the ocean, such as the warm and cold phase of the ENSO cycle (El Niño / Southern Oscillation).