Final Research Report

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT Date: 30 July 2010 Research Provider: NIWA Project Code: ENV200305 Project Title: To review the current threat status of selected associated or dependent species Report Title: Summary of Work to date for ENV200305 Principal Investigator: S.J. Baird Author: S.J. Baird; J. Booth; W. Lyon Project Start Date: I October 2003 Expected Project End Date: 31 July 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides a summary of the life of this project with respect to the progress achieved and the planned direction for future work. NIWA was awarded this contract in 2003 and, in consultation with the Ministry of Fisheries, agreed on a framework for assessing the threat status of selected marine species. However, due to staff changes at the Ministry of Fisheries and the ongoing development of the Ministry’s strategy for the environment, a lack of direction impeded any real progress beyond the first output commitment from NIWA. Subsequently, interest was reinvigorated. In consultation with the Ministry, agreement on an assessment methodology was reached and this is described in the body of this report. For a record of the project activity, the original tender, original methodology, and resulting species summaries collated by NIWA are attached as appendices; however, these appendices represent work based on the original methodology and were undertaken about 5 years ago, at a time when the Ministry was developing environmental and harvest strategy management processes that are now in place. Thus, much of the information requires updating. OBJECTIVES Overall Objective: 1. To review the current threat status of selected associated or dependent species. Specific Objective: 1. To assess the current threat status of selected associated or dependent species. INTRODUCTION This report provides a summary of progress to-date on Ministry of Fisheries project ENV200305: to review the current threat status of selected associated or dependent species. The main body of the report describes the methodology framework agreed by the Ministry in 2009–10 as the way to progress an assessment of the threat status of marine species in New Zealand waters. Other documentation relevant to the project is presented in chronological order in the appendices. The appendices contain the background documents and work completed at the beginning of the project. These are included to indicate the original scope of the work (where it could be readily defined) and as evidence of work completed to date – though much of this work is now out-of-date. 1 The tender for this project (Appendix 1, p. 8) stated: a) that the review should not include chondrichthyans or protected species, which at that time included marine mammals, most seabirds, and a small number of coral and fish species; b) the emphasis was to be on associated or dependent teleosts and marine invertebrates; and c) the expected approach would be to adapt existing classification frameworks (such as those used by the Department of Conservation, World Conservation Union (IUCN), or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)). The main requirements of the project were to consult with fisheries managers of the Ministry of Fisheries to develop a list of species to be assessed and to run an assessment workshop following an agreed methodology with the participation of scientific experts. The primary output from the project would aid fishery managers in the consideration of the environmental effects of fishing and the development of performance indicators. The brief for this report is simply to collate and present what has been done under this project, not to summarise the current international knowledge, nor to provide the current Ministry of Fisheries rationale or potential use of the output from threat assessments. Initial approach When the tender for ENV200305 (Appendix 1) was released we sought clarification from the Ministry of Fisheries through discussions with officials working on the draft Strategy for the Environment (the predecessor of the Strategy for Managing the Environmental Effects of Fishing (SMEEF)). Although, some estimates of bycatch were available through projects such as ENV1999/02 (Anderson et al. 2001), there was an apparent lack of knowledge about many of these species and the draft environmental strategy document stressed the importance of knowledge of the effects of fishing on non-target catches, including effects of changes in fishery management regimes. Our accepted tender bid detailed the process we would undertake to assess the current threat status of selected associated or dependent species (Appendix 2, p. 11): in consultation with Ministry of Fisheries, develop an agreed list of species and determine a suitable methodology for assessment; provide brief summaries of information for each species; undertake an assessment workshop; and document the assessment results in a summary report with the relevant species information. Our approach was: a) to suggest species (25 teleosts and 25 invertebrates) from two areas where we knew there was at least some available information from bycatch studies, and where the communities represented different habitats and different fishing pressure — Chatham Rise and Bay of Plenty; and b) to review the available threat classification systems and their relevance for the New Zealand marine environment (Appendix 3, p. 15). There were delays in receiving comment from the Ministry of Fisheries due to staff unavailability and then changes in personnel. The Ministry of Fisheries agreed on the species and we proceeded to produce species summaries (Appendix 4, p. 30; Appendix 5, p. 61). The review work shown in Appendix 3 was presented to the Aquatic Environment Working Group in May 2005 and was received with very little comment or feedback. No minutes were produced from the meeting and we halted work on the project until we were able to establish a direction from the Ministry of Fisheries and an acceptable methodology. Interest in the project was revived with the arrival of Dr Pamela Mace at the Ministry of Fisheries. The combination of her international, recent and ongoing experience in this field (for example, Mace et al. 2002) and recent clarification within the Ministry of Fisheries with respect to environmental principles and management has resulted in further discussions between NIWA and the Ministry of Fisheries — the results of which are presented below as the way to proceed, with the lead taken by Dr Pamela Mace. The focus has moved from the original community-based approach to one directed at commercial fish species using the internationally accepted CITES based assessment process. The reader is directed to the background review in Appendix 3 and to FAO (2001) and Mace et al. (2002) for the rationale and examples of the CITES approach summarised below. 2 AN EXTINCTION RISK MODEL PROPOSED FOR NEW ZEALAND MARINE SPECIES Worldwide there are examples of populations of both commercial and non-commercial aquatic species becoming at risk of extinction through anthropogenic and/or natural causes. Among the non-commercial species may be those associated with the target commercial species. The Ministry of Fisheries is classifying extinction risk for New Zealand aquatic species using a system based on one developed by FAO (FAO 2001), it in turn being derived from National Marine Fisheries Service (Mace et al. 2002), CITES (the CITES Notification), AFS (American Fisheries Society; Musick (1999)), and IUCN (Red list) systems. The Ministry of Fisheries views the FAO system as being the one most suitable for use with aquatic species—both commercial and non-commercial. However, this extinction risk classification system still needs to be brought into a New Zealand context, and the system—and its modifications—are summarised here, drawing heavily in its wording on FAO (2001) and Mace et al. (2002). The DOC threat classification system (Hitchmough 2002, Molloy et al. 2002) is not considered to be suitable for many marine species, especially exploited ones. Population units The extinction risk classification can be applied to various population units of any particular taxon. It may be, on the one hand, the extinction risk for the taxon throughout the New Zealand region, or, at the other extreme, it may be for the population of the taxon in one locality. For example, consider orange roughy. The level of extinction risk might be estimated for the entire New Zealand population; for ORH 7A (equivalent to the Distinct Population Segment and, if genetically distinct, to the Evolutionarily Significant Unit, discussed by Musick (1999)); or for some subpopulation of orange roughy such as that associated with a particular seamount. The Ministry of Fisheries should decide the population unit (‘population’ from now on) for which they wish to consider extinction risk. Risk categories The classification system to be used for each population has five levels of extinction risk, determined for each mainly on the current estimated biomass relative to an undisturbed/unfished baseline estimate. (Surrogates for this estimate of extent-of-decline are given below.) • Very high concern , where the population is <2% of the baseline • High concern , where the population is 2–5% of the baseline • Moderate concern , where the population is 5–20% of the baseline, depending on the productivity of the species (see below) • Low concern , where the population is >5–20% of the baseline, depending on the productivity of the species • Data deficient

Load more