Panama Small Pelagics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IFFO RS V2.0 FISHERY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND TEMPLATE REPORT Fishery Under Assessment Panama Small Pelagics Date May 2018 Assessor RS Standards 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: Certification Body Details Name of Certification Body: RS Standards Assessor Name Peer Reviewer Assessment Initial/Surveillance/ Whole fish / By- Days Re-approval product Assessment Period Feb – May 2018 Scope Details Management Authority (Country/State) Panama Pacific anchoveta, Pacific thread herring, Pacific Main Species bumper Fishery Location Panama, Gulf of Panama Gear Type(s) Purse seine Outcome of Assessment Overall Outcome Clauses Failed Peer Review Evaluation Recommendation 1 IFFO RS Fishery Assessment Methodology & Template Report DRAFT; Jan 2017 General Results General Clause Outcome M1 - Management Framework PASS M2 - Surveillance, Control and Enforcement GAP F1 - Impacts on ETP Species GAP F2 - Impacts on Habitats GAP F3 - Ecosystem Impacts GAP Note: This table should be completed for whole fish assessments only. Species-Specific Results Category Species % landings Outcome (Pass/Fail) A1 PASS A2 GAP Pacific anchoveta 50-60% A3 GAP A4 GAP Category A A1 PASS A2 GAP Pacific thread herring 35-40% A3 GAP A4 GAP Category B None n/a Category C None n/a White mullet 0.1-2% PASS Cachema weakfish 0.1-2% PASS [estimated] Category D Peruvian moonfish 0.1-2% PASS Sea catfish 0.1-2% GAP Pacific bumper 0.1-2% PASS [List all Category A and B species. List approximate total %age of landings which are Category C and D species; these do not need to be individually named here] 2 IFFO RS Fishery Assessment Methodology & Template Report DRAFT; 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 DRAFT; 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 DRAFT; 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 Cetengraulis Gulf of Pacific anchoveta 50-60% Yes A mysticetus Panama Pacific thread Gulf of Opisthonema spp 35-40% Yes A herrings Panama Chloroscombrus Gulf of Pacific bumper 0.1-2% No D orqueta Panama White mullet Mugil curema 0.1-2% No D Cynoscion Cachema weakfish 0.1-2% No D phoxocephalus Peruvian moonfish Selene peruviana 0.1-2% No D Sea catfish Ariopsis spp 0.1-2% No D 5 IFFO RS Fishery Assessment Methodology & Template Report DRAFT; Jan 2017 Context for this Assessment Report The Panamanian small pelagic fishery was the first fishery accepted into the pilot programme for the IFFO RS Improver Programme (IP), in November 2015. Since that time it has passed both the 6 month and 1 year surveillance assessments and remained in the IP, demonstrating considerable progress towards achieving full IFFO RS approval. In 2017, IFFO RS implemented two significant changes impacting the Panama small pelagic IP membership: firstly, Version 2 of the IFFO RS standard was launched in June 2017, including a substantial revision and update of the fishery assessment criteria and process. Secondly, the IP application and acceptance process was fully revised and strengthened to reflect changes in the way it was viewed by the reduction fishery supply chain. Together, these events necessitate the re-visiting of the Panama small pelagic assessment and application. This assessment report represents an upgrade of the initial Version 1 fishery assessment conducted in 2015, updated to reflect both the changes in the IFFO RS fishery assessment process and the fishery itself over the last 3 years. From this report, the fishery will be able to make any required changes to its improvement timeline and ensure it is able to remain in the new IFFO RS IP until such time as it is able to achieve full IFFO RS approval. Key 2017 updates as reported by CeDePesca Throughout 2017, a number of areas were addressed relating to general improvement in fishery management for the Panamanian small pelagic fishery1. Some of these key elements have been summarised below from the CeDePesca FIP updates. 2017 January – March 2017 In January, a report on the bycatch observed by the Onboard Observers Program during the 2016 fishing season was prepared by CeDePesca and presented to Promarina. The database on catch and effort was also fully updated. In February, Promarina and CeDePesca coordinated the execution of a hydoracoustic survey in the Gulf of Panama. The survey took place onboard of Promarina’s fishing vessels “Anchoveta” and “Tabor” from February 20th to 25th under the lead of hydroacoustic experts Albor Tecnológico and with collaboration of CeDePesca. The final report on the hydroacoustic survey was delivered by Albor Tecnológico to Promarina in March. In March, CeDePesca started the recruiting process for the 2017 Onboard Observers Program. Promarina has agreed to increase the coverage of the program from two onboard observers to three during the 2017 fishing season. April – June 2017 On April 20th, Promarina and CeDePesca have welcomed Procesadora Bayano (Probasa) to the FIP. Probasa is a fishmeal company that has recently started operations in the Gulf of Panama. An addendum to the Framework Collaboration Agreement has been signed to 1 http://cedepesca.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-01_Panamanian-small-pelagics-FIP_Progress- table.pdf 6 IFFO RS Fishery Assessment Methodology & Template Report DRAFT; Jan 2017 welcome Probasa to the FIP, and Specific Agreement N°6 has been signed by all FIP partners adopting the 2017 FIP Action Plan.