sign in sign up
<<
Home , European conger, Merlucciidae, Orange roughy, Pacific saury, Scalloped bonnethead, Silver gemfish

ISSN 0429-9345

495 FAO TECHNICAL PAPER 495 The state of the world highly The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas stocks, and associated migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species

This publication describes the scientific principles and techniques used for resource management of elasmobranch fisheries with emphasis on the particular context of elasmobranchs. The management characteristics of these are described – their common character and their biological constraints on productivity (low growth rate, late maturity and low fecundity). Stock assessment of elasmobranchs is described in the context of management objectives in a wide management context. Special attention is given to accurate species identification given the prevalent aggregating of landings data across species, genera and often families in this group. Techniques and experiences for tagging elasmobranchs for population estimation are described as well as methods of genetic techniques for stock identification. Methods and problems involved in determining age, growth, fecundity and mortality rates are described and their use in age-structured models within the context of the reproductive biology of these fishes. Demographic models to determine the productive of elasmobranch resources are described. Use of surveys to complement information derived from fisheries is described together with management measures. Last, practices of utilization are noted.

ISBN 92-5-105403-7 ISSN 0429-9345

9 7 8 9 2 5 1 0 5 4 0 3 1 FAO TC/M/A0212E/1/11.05/2700 FAO FISHERIES The state of the world highly TECHNICAL PAPER migratory, straddling and other 495 high seas fish stocks, and associated species

by Jean-Jacques Maguire Michael Sissenwine Jorge Csirke Richard Grainger

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2006 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

ISBN 92-5-xxxxxxx

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to: Chief Publishing Management Service Information Division FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to: [email protected]

© FAO 2006 iii

PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT

This document has been prepared under the direct guidance of the Marine Resources Service, Resources Division, FAO Fisheries Department, as part of its regular programme activities and a partial fulfilment of the Organization’s role with regards to the monitoring and reporting on global marine fishery resources and relevant environmental and ecological changes. The main objective of this review is to provide the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) and more generally, policy-makers, civil society and those who derive their livelihood from fisheries and/or have a direct interest in the conservation and management of world fishery resources with a comprehensive, objective and global review of the state of the world highly migratory fish stocks, straddling fish stocks, other high seas fish stocks and stocks of associated species considered in relation to the 1995 United Nations Fish Stock Agreement. This document is based on an expanded and updated version of a technical document provided in November 2005 to the UN Division of Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) as one of FAO’s contribution to the preparation of the report of the UN Secretary General to be submitted to the Review Conference on the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, New York, 22–26 May 2006, in accordance with paragraph 17 of General Assembly resolution 59/25, to assist the Review Conference to implement its mandate under paragraph 2, article 36 of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (United Nations General Assembly document A/Conf.210/2006/1). This document is also intended to supplement the information contained in the report to the above- mentioned Review Conference. Main sections of this document have been drafted and edited by J.J. Maguire and M. Sissenwine (FAO Consultants), and by J. Csirke and R. Grainger of the FAO Fisheries Department, with contributions from a number of FAO colleagues and collaborators, including K. Cochrane, L. Garibaldi, S. Garcia, J. Lleonart, J. Majkowski, J.F. Pulvenis, R. Shotton and M. Tandstad. F. Carocci and M. Lamboeuf assisted with the processing of tables, maps and figures, R. Sola assisted with the typing and formatting and E. d’Antoni illustrated the cover page and some inside drawings. The production of this document was funded through the FAO/FIR regular programme, with extra-budgetary contributions through FishCode and from DOALOS.

iv

ABSTRACT

This document describes highly migratory fish species, straddling fish stocks, and other high seas fish stocks and the fisheries for them, including information on their state of exploitation. About 200 species have been identified as being fished on the high seas either as highly migratory species, straddling fish stocks or other high seas fish stocks and this paper reports on 226 species (or species group) statistical area combinations. Fisheries for highly migratory species are important in all and semi-enclosed seas, except for polar regions. Fisheries for straddling fish stocks are much more localized, primarily occurring in a few regions where continental shelves extend beyond the 200 miles Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) limit or where the high productivity of the coastal area favour a more expanded distribution of coastal stocks into the high seas, or attracts high seas resources into the EEZ. Most fisheries for other high seas fish stocks are deep water fisheries (being conducted at depths of the order of 1 000 m, or more). About 30 percent of the highly migratory and tuna-like species, more than 50 percent of the highly migratory oceanic , and nearly two-thirds of the straddling stocks (including other high seas stocks) are considered overexploited or depleted. While it is important to manage these fisheries responsibly, it is also appropriate to put them in perspective: most occurs within EEZs, and fisheries for other high seas fish stocks, for which there is concern about the adequacy of governance instruments, account for a small fraction of the total catch. Legitimate concerns about other high seas fish stocks should not divert efforts to apply the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries to EEZ fish stocks and fisheries that need urgent attention, particularly small- coastal fisheries upon which millions of people are critically dependent.

The adoption of the UN Fish Stock Agreement (FSA) in 1995 and its entering into force in 2001 has led to the implementation of measures that are expected to be beneficial in the medium to long term to species fished on the high seas. The scarcity of the information available and the short time elapsed since the entering into force of the FSA does not allow for a realistic assessment of the impact the FSA may have had on the state of the various fish stocks being exploited in the high seas. The slow recovery of several straddling fish stocks in the northwest Atlantic after more than 10 years of very stringent fishery limitations illustrates the intergenerational nature of the rebuilding process and the potential importance of ecosystem changes.

While the performance of the agreement cannot yet be evaluated directly from the response of fisheries and fishery resources, it is useful to consider progress relative to some key issues upon which the success of the FSA is predicated. In particular, information on fisheries and fishery resources needs to improve, the precautionary approach needs to be applied, fishing capacity needs to be matched to productivity of fishery resources, and fisheries management needs to evolve to an ecosystem approach. Another issue is the applicability of the FSA to fisheries for other high seas fish stocks. While this document makes no comment on this issue, it does discuss some options to improve governance of these fisheries in areas where it is deemed to be inadequate. Finally, all those involved with fisheries need to recognize that deteriorating public opinion about fisheries is a threat even to well manged fisheries. This problem is addressed in the document’s concluding remarks.

Maguire, J.-J., Sissenwine, M., Csirke, J. & Grainger, R. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 495. Rome: FAO. 2006. ___ pp. v

CONTENTS Page

PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT ...... iii

1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS...... 2 2.1 Species and stock terminology ...... 3 2.2 Approach including data issues ...... 6 3. HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES...... 7 3.1 Tuna and tuna-like species ...... 7 3.1.1 The resources...... 8 3.1.2 The fisheries...... 12 3.1.3 State of the stocks...... 14 3.2 Oceanic sharks...... 17 3.2.1 Bluntnose sixgill shark...... 18 3.2.2 ...... 18 3.2.3 Thresher sharks (family Alopiidae) ...... 19 3.2.4 (Rhincodon typus)...... 21 3.2.5 Requiem sharks (family Carcharhinidae)...... 21 3.2.6 Hammerhead, bonnethead and sharks (family Sphyrnidae)...... 22 3.2.7 sharks...... 23 3.2.8 The fisheries...... 26 3.2.9 State of the stocks...... 27 3.3 Other highly migratory species...... 28 3.3.1 Pomfrets...... 28 3.3.2 ...... 29 3.3.3 Dolphinfish...... 30 3.3.4 State of the stocks...... 31 4. SELECTED STRADDLING FISH STOCKS ...... 31 4.1. Pacific Ocean...... 32 4.1.1 Northwest Pacific...... 32 4.1.2 Northeast Pacific ...... 33 4.1.3 Western Central Pacific...... 33 4.1.4 Eastern Central Pacific ...... 33 4.1.5 Southwest Pacific...... 33 4.1.6 Southeast Pacific...... 33 4.2 ...... 33 4.2.1 Northwest Atlantic ...... 33 4.2.2 Northeast Atlantic...... 34 4.2.3 Eastern Central Atlantic ...... 34 4.2.4 Western Central Atlantic ...... 35 4.2.5 Southwest Atlantic...... 35 4.2.6 Southeast Atlantic ...... 35 4.3 Indian Ocean...... 35 4.4 Southern Ocean...... 35 4.5 ...... 37 4.6 State of the stocks...... 37 5. OTHER HIGH SEAS FISH STOCKS...... 42 5.1 ( atlanticus) ...... 43 5.2 Oreo dories (Allocyttus spp., Neocyttus spp. and Pseudocyttus spp.)...... 44 5.3 Alfonsino (Beryx splendens) ...... 45 5.4 Toothfishes ( spp.)...... 45 5.5 Pelagic armourhead (Pseudopentaceros wheeleri and P. richardsoni)...... 46 vi

5.6 Hoki ( novaezelandiae)...... 46 5.7 Other species...... 47 5.8 State of the stocks...... 47 6. ASSOCIATED SPECIES...... 47 6.1 Discards ...... 47 6.2 Physical contact by fishing gear with organisms that are not caught and indirect processes...... 50 7. STRADDLING FISH STOCKS, HIGHLY MIGRATORY FISH STOCKS AND OTHER HIGH SEAS FISH STOCKS FOR WHICH NO MEASURES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS...... 50 8. STATE OF FISHERIES FOR OCEANIC SPECIES BASED ON AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF CATCH TRENDS...... 51 9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 54 9.1 State of the stocks...... 54 9.2 Issues to consider in evaluating the performance of the Fish Stocks Agreement...... 55 9.3 Improving information on fisheries and fishery resources ...... 56 9.4 Applying the precautionary approach...... 59 9.5 Matching fishing capacity to fishery resources ...... 60 9.6 Implementing an ecosystem approach...... 61 9.7 Concluding remarks...... 62 10. REFERENCES ...... 64

vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Types of highly migratory, straddling and other high seas stocks. Top panel: 1. Highly migratory; 2. Straddling stock (extensive distribution); 3. Other high sea stocks (deep sea). Bottom panel: 4. Pelagic straddling stock (mainly EEZ); 5. Demersal straddling stock (mainly EEZ); 6. Straddling stock (trans-boundary); 7. Straddling stock (mostly high seas); 8. Straddling stock (evenly distributed) Figure 2 FAO marine major fishing areas for statistical purposes Figure 3 General geographic distribution (in red = known distribution; pink = uncertain distribution) and main fishing grounds (in green, based on 2000–2005 catches, when available) of highly migratory tuna species. Maps modified from Collette and Nauen (1983) with 2000–2005 catch data extracted from Carocci and Majkowski (2003) integrated with unpublished data Figure 4 General geographic distribution (in red = known distribution; pink = uncertain distribution) and main fishing grounds (in green, based on 2000–2005 catches, when available) of selected highly migratory species. Maps modified from Nakamura (1985) with 2000–2005 catch data extracted from Carocci and Majkowski (2003), integrated with unpublished data Figure 5 Proportion of highly migratory tuna and tuna-like catches made outside EEZs by major FAO statistical areas during 2000–2004, for all highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species and all fishing gears Figure 6 Catches of all highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species for all fishing gears, 2000– 2004 Figure 7 Bluntnose sixgill shark ( griseus) Figure 8 Geographic distribution of the bluntnose sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus) (from Compagno, 1984a) Figure 9 Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) Figure 10 Geographic distribution of the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) (from Compagno, 2001) Figure 11 Catches of basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus) reported to FAO Figure 12 (Alopias pelagicus) Figure 13 Geographic distribution of the pelagic thresher (Alopias pelagicus) (from Compagno, 2001) Figure 14 Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus) Figure 15 Geographic distribution of the bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus) (from Compagno, 2001) Figure 16 Thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) Figure 17 Geographic distribution of the thresher (Alopias vulpinus) from Compagno, 2001 Figure 18 Catches of thresher sharks (family Alopiidae) as reported to FAO Figure 19 Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) Figure 20 Geographic distribution of the whale shark (Rhincodon typus) (from Compagno, 2001) Figure 21 Silky shark ( falciformis) Figure 22 (Prionace glauca) Figure 23 Catches of requiem sharks (family Carcharhinidae) as reported to FAO Figure 24 Scalloped hammerhead sharks ( lewini) Figure 25 Catches of hammerhead, bonnethead, or scoophead sharks (family Sphyrnidae) as reported to FAO Figure 26 The great white shark (Carcharodon ) Figure 27 Geographic distribution of the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) (from Compagno, 2001) Figure 28 Shortfin mako shark ( oxyrinchus) Figure 29 Geographic distribution of the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) (from Compagno, 2001) Figure 30 Longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus) Figure 31 Geographic distribution of the longfin mako (Isurus paucus) (from Compagno, 2001) viii

Figure 32 shark ( ditropis) Figure 33 Geographic distribution of the salmon shark (Lamna ditropis) (from Compagno, 2001) Figure 34 shark (Lamna nasus) Figure 35 Geographic distribution of the porbeagle (Lamna nasus) (from Compagno, 2001) Figure 36 Catches of mackerel sharks (family ) as reported to FAO Figure 37 The Atlantic pomfret (Brama brama) Figure 38 Catches of pomfrets and ocean breams as reported to FAO Figure 39 The Pacific ( saira) Figure 40 Geographic distribution of the (Cololabis saira) (from Eschmeyer, Herald and Hammann, 1983) Figure 41 Catches of sauries as reported to FAO Figure 42 The common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) Figure 43 Geographic distribution of the common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) (modified from Collette, 1999) Figure 44 Catches of dolphinfish as reported to FAO Figure 45 Continental shelf areas within and beyond the 200 nm limit off the coas Figure 46 Catches by species in the Southern Ocean as reported to FAO in percentage cumulative, 1990–2004 Figure 47 Catches reported to FAO from the Southern Ocean Figure 48 Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) Figure 49 Catches of orange roughy as reported to FAO Figure 50 Catches of oreo dories as reported to FAO Figure 51 Catches of alfonsinos as reported to FAO Figure 52 The (Dissostichus eleginoides) Figure 53 Catches of toothfish (Antarctic and Patagonian) as reported to FAO Figure 54 Catches of hoki as reported to FAO Figure 55 Total global catches of marine resources categorized as oceanic-epipelagic, 1950–2004 Figure 56 Total global catches of marine resources categorized as oceanic-deepwater, 1950–2004 Figure 57 Percentage of the world’s top oceanic-epipelagic marine fishery resources in various phases of fishery development, 1950–2004 Figure 58 Percentage of the world’s top oceanic-deepwater marine fishery resources in various phases of fishery development, 1950–2004 Figure 59 Summary of the state of exploitation of highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species, highly migratory species of oceanic sharks, and straddling stocks. Other high sea fish stocks are included with straddling stocks since fisheries for these types of stocks cannot be distinguished. State of Exploitation is classified as under-exploited (U), moderately exploited (M), fully exploited(F), over-exploited (O), depleted (D) or recovering (R). Percentages are calculated for stocks for which the state of exploitation can be determined. It is unknown for 73 percent of the stocks considered in this report

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of the state of exploitation of highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species by major ocean area Table 2 Summary of the state of exploitation of oceanic sharks Table 3 Summary of the state of exploitation of selected other highly migratory species Table 4 Summary of the state of exploitation of the main species-area combinations that contain straddling fish stocks Table 5 Top species in the categories oceanic-epipelagic and oceanic-deepwater which were subjected to cluster analysis

ix

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ACFM Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management AICDP Agreement on the International Conservation Program APFIC Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission BRDs Bycatch Reduction Devices CCMALR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources CCSBT Commission for the Conservation of CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora COFI FAO Committee on Fisheries EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone FADs Fish-Aggregating Devices FIGIS Fisheries Global Information System FSA United Nations Fish Stock Agreement GFCM General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IPHC International Pacific Commission IPOA International Plan of Action IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated IWC International Whaling Commission MHLC Multilateral High Level Conferences on South Pacific Tuna Fisheries MPA Marine Protected Area MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization NASCO North Conservation Organization NEAFC Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission RFMOs Regional Fisheries Management Organizations SEAFO Southeast Atlantic Fisheries Organization SIDP FAO Species Identification and Data Programme SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNCLOS The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea WECAF Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission WTPSO World Tuna Purse-Seine Organization

The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) adopted on 10 December 1982 (United Nations, 1982) and which entered into force on 16 November 1994, established overarching rules governing all uses of the world’s oceans and seas and their resources. Of particular relevance to fisheries are their Part V (articles 55 to 75) on the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and Part VII on the High Seas (articles 86 to 120). UNCLOS recognizes the sovereign rights of the coastal States for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing fishery resources in their EEZs, calling upon the coastal State to adopt conservation and management measures to promote the optimum utilization of fishery resources in their EEZs. UNCLOS also recognizes the free access and the freedom of fishing to all States in the high seas, calling upon coastal States and States fishing to cooperate in the conservation and management of fish stocks occurring in the high seas. With respect to exploited stocks or stocks of associated species occurring both within the EEZ and in the area beyond and adjacent to the zone, UNCLOS calls upon the coastal States and States fishing in the high seas to seek to agree upon the measures necessary for the conservation of those stocks in the adjacent high seas area. UNCLOS also calls upon the coastal States and other States fishing highly migratory species to cooperate in ensuring conservation and promoting the optimum utilization of those resources in their whole area of distribution. With respect to stocks occurring entirely in the high seas, all States are called upon to cooperate in the conservation and management of those fishery resources. Fishing in the high seas was not perceived as a major problem requiring priority attention during the negotiating process of UNCLOS. Therefore, with respect to the highly migratory and other fishery resources occurring partly or entirely in the high seas, UNCLOS limited itself to providing general principles for their conservation, optimum utilization and management, calling upon all States to cooperate towards the further development and implementation of these general principles. However, as UNCLOS was being adopted and as more coastal States claimed their rights and jurisdiction over fisheries in their EEZ, large distant water fishing fleets were displaced from some of their traditional coastal fishing grounds and the pressure to fish in the high seas grew rapidly and without much control. Inadequate management and soon became problems in the high seas, and thus the increased need to control and reduce fishing fleets operating on the high seas as there were indications that excessive fishing was jeopardizing the sustainability of high seas fishery resources, as was highlighted by FAO (1992) in reporting to the Twentieth Session of its Committee on Fisheries (FAO, 1993). Growing concerns of the international community regarding the state of fishery resources being exploited in areas beyond the areas under national jurisdiction was influential in prompting a decision by the United Nations to convene an international Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. An important contribution to the convening of this conference was the Declaration of Cancun, adopted at the International Conference on Responsible Fishing convened by the Government of Mexico in collaboration with FAO in May 1992 (FAO, 1995). The Declaration of Cancun stated that “States should cooperate on bilateral, regional and multilateral levels to establish, reinforce and implement effective means and mechanisms to ensure responsible fishing on the high seas, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”. The Declaration of Cancun was brought to the attention of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992, were it was agreed that a United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks would be convened with the general mandate of promoting effective implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. UNCED also recommended that the Conference should identify and assess existing problems related to the conservation and management of such fish stocks, consider means of improving fisheries cooperation among States, and formulate appropriate recommendations. The mandate to convene an international Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in its resolution 47/192 of 22 December 1992. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 2

The first session of the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks was held in New York, 19–23 April 1993, and during its Sixth Session on 4 August 1995 the Conference adopted without a vote the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (also known as the 1995 United Nations Fish Stock Agreement, or just as the Fish Stock Agreement (United Nations, 1995)), thus discharging the mandate given by General Assembly resolution 47/192. The United Nations Fish Stock Agreement (FSA) entered into force on 11 December 2001 with expectations that it would become a blueprint for the management of high seas fisheries. Specifically, it addressed management of highly migratory species and straddling fish stocks. Fisheries for other high seas fish stocks, that were not explicitly addressed in the FSA, have emerged in recent years. In order to assist in the overall assessment of fish stock and fisheries in the high seas following the entering into force of the FSA, this document describes highly migratory species, straddling fish stocks, and other high seas fish stocks and the fisheries for them, including information on their state of exploitation. It also considers the effect of fisheries for these resources on associated species and ecosystems. Lastly, it highlights issues that need to be addressed in implementing the FSA and to improve its performance in the future. An earlier and much shorter version of this document was contributed for the preparation of the United Nations General Assembly document A/Conf.210/2006/1, issued for the May 2006 Review Conference of the FSA. About 200 species have been identified as being fished on the high seas either as highly migratory species, straddling fish stocks or other high seas fish stocks. Although there is insufficient scientific information to determine the actual number of stocks involved in these fisheries, 226 species (or species group) statistical area combinations are reported on as stocks in this report. The number of species and stocks are similar since many species occur in multiple stocks, but many stocks are made up of groups of more than one species. As described in other sections of this document the total reported catch in 2004 of highly migratory species is 5.1 million tonnes, and this is dominated by catches of tuna and tuna like species (4.8 million tonnes). The total catch of oceanic epipelagic and deepwater species that form straddling fish stocks and other high seas fish stocks was 5.6 million tonnes in 2004. It is noted, however, that an unknown but certainly large proportion of this catch occurs within EEZs and some of it comes from stocks that are entirely within EEZs (therefore, from non straddling and non high seas stocks). Furthermore, some neritic and more coastal species usually entirely within the EEZs may also form straddling stocks and other high seas stocks in those few areas where the continental shelf and slope, or the effect of coastal enrichment processes extend beyond the EEZs. Available data in global databases is insufficient to distinguish catches from straddling stocks from those on other high seas fish stocks or those on entirely EEZ stocks.

2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Article 36 of the FSA that entered into force on 11 December 2001 states that four years after the date of entry into force, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene a conference with a view to assessing the effectiveness of the Agreement in securing the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and that this conference shall review and assess the adequacy of the provisions of the Agreement and, if necessary, propose means of strengthening the substance and methods of implementation of those provisions in order to better address any continuing problems in the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. In preparation for the aforementioned review, the Fourth Informal Meeting of the States Parties to the FSA, held at the United Nations, New York, 31 May–3 June 2005, agreed that the review should consider “discrete high seas stocks and non-target and associated dependent species” in addition to highly migratory species and straddling stocks.

The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 3

2.1 Species and stock terminology The biological definition of species (as a group of living organisms consisting of individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding) is straightforward and does not pose major problems of nomenclature for fish and for other living organisms exploited by fishing (“species” are the fundamental taxonomic units of biological classification). However, the definition of “stock” varies greatly according to the knowledge and information available as well as the purpose and type(s) of fishery under consideration. Sparre and Venema (1998) provide a detailed description of “the stock concept” and from the fisheries management point of view, the most suitable definition of “stock unit” is probably the one provided by Gulland (1969; 1983) who, on operational criteria and practical grounds, proposed that a group of fish can be treated as a unit stock if the results of assessment and other population studies, as well as those of fisheries management measures in which the group of fish is treated as a unit stock do not change significantly from the real situation. Generally speaking, a “stock” is a subset of a species with similar growth and mortality parameters within a given geographical area and with negligible interbreeding with other stocks of the same species in adjacent areas. In practice, the application of the concept varies considerably depending on the knowledge available and acceptable complexity in management: for salmon, a river may contain several stocks, one for each of the tributaries where spawning occurs, while for there are two stocks in the Atlantic (north and south) and one in the Mediterranean. In some cases, a stock can include more than one species (e.g. some redfish ( spp.) stocks in the Northwest Atlantic). With advances in population genetics, it is clear that the stock structure of many species is much more complex than is captured by stock definitions for management purposes. In some cases, stocks are being redefined based on this new information. However, for the purpose of this review, it is only feasible to apply the term “stock” to species-area combinations with the resolution of statistical areas used for catch reporting to the FAO Statistical Database. In some cases, it is necessary to combine more than one species. This review identifies 200 species as being fished on the high seas either as highly migratory species, straddling fish stocks or other high seas fish stocks. Although there is insufficient scientific information to determine the actual number of stocks involved in these fisheries, 226 species (or species group) statistical area combinations are reported on as stocks. The number of species and stocks are similar since many species occur in multiple stocks, but many stocks are made up of groups of more than one species For the purpose of this review, highly migratory species are the species listed in Annex 1 of UNCLOS. This is a legal definition rather than a scientific definition based on the actual migratory behaviour of the species. Nevertheless, the species listed in Annex 1 are in general capable of migrating relatively long distances, and stocks of these species are likely to occur both within EEZs and on the high seas. Where available, information on individual stocks will be provided. It is noted that whales (i.e. Cetaceans) are included in Annex 1 of UNCLOS as highly migratory species. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has management authority for the harvest of whales. At present there is a moratorium on commercial whaling, although there is some aboriginal subsistence whaling, whaling under scientific permits, and whaling in coastal state waters by countries lodging an “objection” within IWC. Whaling is not addressed in the FSA and Cetaceans are not considered in this review. UNCLOS does not use the term “straddling stocks”, but article 63, clause 2 refers to: “the same stock or stocks of associated species[which] occur both within the exclusive economic zone and in an area beyond and adjacent to the zone”, and this will be taken as a working definition of the concept of straddling stock in this document. The Fish Stock Agreement, while using the term extensively, does not specifically define it although the above definition (“stocks occurring both within and beyond the exclusive economic zone”) is used in explaining the meaning of straddling stocks when using some of the other official languages of the Organization. The concept of straddling fish stock can cover a continuum from most of the fish being inside the areas of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) under national jurisdiction to most of the fish being outside EEZs (the high seas). No minimum portion outside or inside has been defined, but usage seems to indicate that as long as there is some directed fishing effort at catching the stock on either The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 4 side of the EEZ line, it is considered to be straddling. For example, the so-called northern (NAFO Divisions 2J3KL) was considered a straddling stock even though 95 percent of the biomass was typically within the coastal State’s EEZ. Neither the term discrete high seas fish stocks nor the concept behind it are used in UNCLOS although Part VII of the Convention addresses the living resources of the high seas in general. Neither does the term or concept appear in the Fish Stock Agreement, because of the nature and scope of the Agreement as originally conceived and negotiated. FAO (1994) used the term “purely high seas stocks” for stocks that are not found within EEZs. This review uses the term “other high seas stocks” to refer to stocks that are not highly migratory or straddling. It is preferred to “discrete high seas stocks” because the discreteness of such stocks is generally unknown (e.g. fish caught on distinct hundreds or thousands of kilometres apart may not necessarily belong to discrete/separate biological units). The exploitation of “other high seas stocks” is relatively recent and less is known about their biology and stock structure than is the case for tunas or tuna-like species, or the more traditional fishery resources on the continental shelves which have been exploited and studied for much longer. Individual aggregations of other high seas stocks may belong to isolated stocks, individual stocks with some mixing with other stocks, or a larger stock occupying an area much larger than that covered by individual aggregations. Individual aggregations may also form a metapopulation (Levins, 1969). The concept of metapopulation implies that some of the aggregations (sinks) may be dependent on other aggregations (sources) for their recruitment and may not be self-sustaining. Fishery management should take account of the stock structure and it would be particularly important to acquire the necessary knowledge before exploitation proceeds too far. The list of other high seas stocks (section 5) used in this review is considered provisional as new resources continue to come under exploitation. Figure 1 illustrates several configurations of highly migratory fish stocks, straddling fish stocks and other high sea stocks. The straddling stocks show the most varied possibilities: they can be found mostly inside one EEZ, mostly on the high seas, evenly distributed between EEZs and the high seas, straddling stocks can also be transboundary. Associated and dependent species are caught and/or impacted in fisheries for straddling fish stocks, highly migratory fish stocks, and other high seas fish stocks. Since any landed catch that is not from a straddling fish stock or highly migratory fish stock, may be regarded as from other high seas fish stocks, this review considers associated species as impacted species that are not part of the landed catch. This document does not consider EEZ stocks (those found either entirely within one country’s EEZ or stocks occurring within the exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal States, but not on the high seas) or the sedentary species of the continental shelf in the sense described in Article 77 of UNCLOS, regarding “…living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil” with respect to continental shelf resources, and are subject to the jurisdiction of coastal nations. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 5

FIGURE 1 Types of highly migratory, straddling and other high seas stocks. Top panel: 1. Highly migratory; 2. Straddling stock (extensive distribution); 3. Other high sea stocks (deep sea). Bottom panel: 4. Pelagic straddling stock (mainly EEZ); 5. Demersal straddling stock (mainly EEZ); 6. Straddling stock (trans-boundary); 7. Straddling stock (mostly high seas); 8. Straddling stock (evenly distributed) The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 6

2.2 Approach including data isues This review builds on a review of highly migratory fish stocks and straddling fish stocks prepared by FAO (1994) as input to the negotiations for the FSA, and on FAO’s (2005a) most recent published review of the state of world marine fisheries. In some cases information from FAO (2005a) was updated based on information provided by Regional Fishery Organizations (further information on Regional Fisheries Organizations can be found in the following FAO web address: http://www.fao.org/fi/body/rfb/index.htm) and in particular, information received from the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission, NEAFC), the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Catch information is from the FAO Fisheries Statistics Database. The most recent complete year of data is 2004 (FAO, 2006a; FAO Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit, in press). At present, there is no global inventory of fish stocks, although one is called for in the “Strategy for Improving the Information on the Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries” approved by the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) of FAO on 28 February 2003 (FAO, 2003d). FAO is developing a Fisheries Global Information System (FIGIS) (FAO, 2006b), which will fulfil this need, but unfortunately, it is only sparsely populated with stock information at this stage of development. The available FAO global fisheries statistics database is by country, species and major FAO fishing areas for statistical purposes (Figure 2). These statistical areas are generally too coarse to correspond to stocks, except for tunas where catches by stocks are included in the FIGIS database, and the data available at present does not distinguish EEZ catches from catches on the high seas. Therefore, it is necessary to make informed judgements for each FAO statistical area about which species are fished partially or entirely on the high seas.

FIGURE 2 FAO marine major fishing areas for statistical purposes

For the purpose of describing their state of exploitation, species/stocks were classified according to a classification scheme used previously by FAO as follows: Not known (N): not much information is available to make a judgment; Underexploited (U): undeveloped or new fishery. Believed to have a significant potential for expansion in total production; Moderately exploited (M): exploited with a low fishing effort. Believed to have some limited potential for expansion in total production; Fully exploited (F): the fishery is operating at or close to optimal yield/effort, with no expected room for further expansion; Overexploited (O): the fishery is being exploited above the optimal yield/effort which is believed to be sustainable in the long term, with no potential room for further expansion and a higher risk of stock depletion/collapse; The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 7

Depleted (D): catches are well below historical optimal yields, irrespective of the amount of fishing effort exerted; Recovering (R): catches are again increasing after having been depleted or a collapse from a previous high. Although more detailed information is provided within each regional review chapter, in summarizing the state of regional and global fishery resources FAO (2005a) reports on 584 species (or species group) -statistical area combinations, for which the state of 441 (76 percent) is reported known. While these species (or species group) -statistical area combinations are referred to as stocks, in many cases they are a collection of several stocks according to either a management or biological perspective. For example, in summarizing the state of cod in the Northwest Atlantic (FAO statistical area 21) the species statistical area combination is treated as a single entry, although there are 10 separate management units for in the area, and often more than one reproductively isolated breeding populations (i.e. stocks from a biological perspective) probably exists in some of these management units. In spite of these limitations, the state of stocks as reported in FAO (2005a) was used herein as the best available global source of stock state information, with refinements based on more recent information provided by some Regional Fisheries Bodies or fishery specific knowledge of FAO Fisheries Department staff or its consultants. Information on (associated and dependant) species associated with fisheries for highly migratory species, straddling fish stocks and other high seas fish stocks is very limited. Rarely are catches of these species reported. Most are discarded at sea. Some countries collect data on discards, but the information is incomplete and it is not routinely reported to FAO. However, FAO recently published an update of information on fishery discards (Kelleher, 2005) which provides useful information on associated species. The status of some of the species is known from various sources (for example, some sea populations are in danger of extinction while others are giving signs of recovery), but almost nothing is known about the status of others. Thus, this review highlights known and potential issues concerning associated species, but a comprehensive assessment is not possible. Various FAO information resources were used as sources of information on the biological characteristics and geographical distribution of the species. These include the FAO species catalogues and other information products provided by the FAO Species Identification and Data Programme (SIDP, http://www.fao.org/fi/SIDP), FIGIS species fact sheets (http://www.fao.org/figis/) and Fishbase (http://www.fishbase.org). 3. HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES As indicated above, highly migratory species are legally defined as those listed in Annex 1 of UNCLOS. They include tuna and tuna-like species, oceanic sharks, pomfrets, sauries, and dolfinfish. Some of these species may only occur and/or be caught within EEZs but the available global database does not allow distinguishing between catches made on the high seas and those made within EEZs. Highly migratory species are therefore discussed without regard to stocks or occurrence within EEZs or on the high seas, except for tunas and some tuna like species for which more detailed data are available.

3.1 Tuna and tuna-like species The information presented in this section is based primarily on the recent summary in FAO (2005a) and on the report of the FAO project on “Management of tuna fishing capacity: conservation and socio-economics” (FAO, 2005b). Information has also been obtained from Regional Fisheries Organizations, either directly or from their published reports and web sites. In particular, updated information has been obtained from the web pages of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT, http://www.ccsbt.org/), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC, http://www.iattc.org/), the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT, http://www.iccat.es/), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC, http://www.iotc.org/) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC, http://www.spc.org.nc/), their publications, or through submissions they have made to FAO specifically for the review Conference on the Fish Stock Agreement. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 8

3.1.1 The resources All tuna and tuna-like highly migratory species (, , and tunas) belong the sub-order . The tunas (Thunnini) include the most economically important species referred to as principal market tunas because of their global economic importance and their intensive international trade for canning and . Tunas are sub-classified into four genera (Thunnus, Katsuwonus, Euthynnus and Auxis) with fourteen species all together. The tunas included in Annex 1 of UNCLOS are in the order they are listed: • tuna (Thunnus alalunga), which occurs in tropical and temperate waters worldwide. • Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), mostly found in temperate waters of the Atlantic, including the Mediterranean, and Pacific Oceans. It is noted that since the drafting of UNCLOS, bluefin tuna in the northern Pacific has been identified as a different species, (Thunnus orientalis) while bluefin in the Atlantic has been re-named . • (Thunnus obesus), found in the Atlantic (but absent from the Mediterranean), Indian and Pacific Oceans. • (Katsuwonus pelamis) with a worldwide distribution in tropical and temperate waters. • (Thunnus albacares), also with a worldwide distribution in tropical and sub- tropical more temperate seas, but absent from the Mediterranean. • Blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus) found in the western Atlantic in tropical and warm seas. • Little tuna (Euthynnus alleteratus and E. affinis), with E. alleteratus found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic, including the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, and E. affinis in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is noted that presently, E. alleteratus is called little tunny and E. affinis is called kawakawa. • Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii), in temperate waters of the southern hemisphere in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. • Frigate mackerel (Auxis thazard and A. rochei) found in the Atlantic (including the Mediterranean Sea where only A. rochei is found), Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is noted that presently, A. thazard is referred to as frigate tuna and A. rochei as bullet tuna. The above tuna species listed as highly migratory species in Annex 1 of UNCLOS have extensive distribution on the high seas. Although their total catches amount to less than 5 percent of the total world marine fish catches, their landed value has been estimated to account for nearly 20 percent of the global marine total. Tuna species can be loosely categorized into tropical and temperate tunas. They exhibit a wide range of life histories, ranging from the skipjack tuna, which has a short lifespan, high fecundity and wide distribution in tropical and temperate waters, to the bluefin tuna which is long lived, breeds late and has well defined breeding and migration patterns. Differing life histories result in contrasts in vulnerability to overfishing. Skipjack are generally considered to be more resilient to exploitation, while bluefin are considered more vulnerable, all the more because of their extremely high market value. The other species have life history characteristic that are intermediate between those two extremes. The tuna–like species included in Annex 1 of UNCLOS also have an extensive geographical distribution. These are: • , of which there are eight species (Tetrapturus angustirostris, T. belone, T. pfluegeri, T. albidus, T. audax, T. georgei, Makaira indica, M. nigricans ), with one or more species found in every Ocean. It is noted that presently, species of the genus Tetrapturus are referred to as spearfishes. It is also noted that the blue species (Makaira nigricans and M. mazara) have been recently consolidated in one single species named Makaira nigricans (Buonaccorsi et al., 1999; Graves and McDowell, 1995). Changes have been already implemented in FAO Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Information System (ASFIS) and accepted by IATTC, SPC and EUROSTAT (L. Garibaldi, personal communication, 2006). • Sailfishes, with two species (Istiophorus platypterus and I. albicans). I. platypterus was formerly restricted to the Indian and Pacific Oceans, but is now found in the Mediterranean Sea where it entered via the Suez Canal. I. albicans is found in the Atlantic Ocean and migrates into the Mediterranean Sea. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 9

• Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) found in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans, the Mediterranean Sea, the Sea of Marmara, the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Little tunny (E. alleteratus) and kawakawa (E. affinis), and to some extent, blackfin tuna (T. atlanticus), black skipjack (E. lineatus), bullet tuna (A. rochei) and frigate tuna (A. thazard), are less oceanic and more associated with the continental shelves than the other tunas and tuna-like species in Annex 1 of UNCLOS. The general distribution and the location of the main fishing grounds of all the highly migratory tuna and of the main tuna-like species mentioned above are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The longtail tuna (T. tonggol) is also an important tuna, not included in UNCLOS Annex 1, which has a wide but less oceanic distribution associated with the continental shelves. Other important tuna-like species not in Annex 1 of UNCLOS include slender tuna (Allothunnus fallai), butterfly kingfish (Gasterochisma melampus), (Acanthocybium solandri), bonitos (Cybiosarda, Orcynopsis and Sarda), and species of the genus (, king mackerels, seerfish and sierra). Slender tuna and butterfly kingfish (with a circumpolar distribution in the Southern Ocean) are now caught mostly as bycatch of the longline fishery targeting southern bluefin tuna. In line with the definitions in UNCLOS and FSA, these species are therefore to be considered as straddling stocks or as other high seas stock if/when occurring only in the high seas.

FIGURE 3 General geographic distribution (in red = known distribution; pink = uncertain distribution) and main fishing grounds (in green, based on 2000–2005 catches, when available) of highly migratory tuna species. Maps modified from Collette and Nauen (1983) with 2000–2005 catch data extracted from Carocci and Majkowski (2003) integrated with unpublished data

Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)

Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)

Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 10

Blackfin tuna (Thunnus altanticus) Little tunny (Euthynnus alleteratus)

Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis) Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii)

Frigate and Bullet tunas (Auxis thazard, A. rochei) The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 11

FIGURE 4 General geographic distribution (in red = known distribution; pink = uncertain distribution) and main fishing grounds (in green, based on 2000–2005 catches, when available) of selected highly migratory billfish species. Maps modified from Nakamura (1985) with 2000–2005 catch data extracted from Carocci and Majkowski (2003), integrated with unpublished data

Black marlin (Makaira indica) Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans)

Atlantic white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) Striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax)

Atlantic sailfish (Istiophorus albicans) Indo-Pacfic sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus)

Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 12

3.1.2 The fisheries Tuna fisheries are among the oldest fisheries in the world (FAO, 2005b) with Phoenician trap fisheries (Ravier and Fromentin, 2001) for bluefin tuna occurring around 2000 BC. They are mentioned by Aristotle, Oppian and Pliny the Elder, and they are also recorded in excavations at prehistoric sites. Until the second part of the twentieth century, fishing occurred mostly in coastal areas. As a result of increasing demand for tuna for canning, industrial fisheries began during the 1940s and 1950s. During the 1950s, the major industrial fisheries were the Japanese longline fishery and the pole-and-line fisheries of the United States of America and Japan, which operated in the Pacific Ocean. The longline fishery reached the Atlantic Ocean during the late 1950s. Also, some European pole-and-line vessels, based in local ports, began fishing off the west coast of Africa at that time. During the 1960s, European pole-and-line and purse-seine vessels began fishing for tunas in tropical areas off West Africa. Japanese pole-and-line vessels increased and expanded their area of operation in the western and central Pacific. Japanese longliners also expanded their fishing operations all over the world, targeting mostly albacore and yellowfin for canning. During the mid- 1960s, vessels of the Republic of and Taiwan Province of China became involved in large- scale longline fishing for tunas. At the end of the decade, improvements in freezing technology and cold storage systems developed for Japanese longliners, made it possible to produce fish that was acceptable for the sashimi market, which, in turn, led the vessels to shift their target species from yellowfin and albacore for canning to bluefin and bigeye for sashimi. In the eastern Pacific Ocean, the pole-and-line vessels of the United States of America were almost completely replaced by purse-seine vessels. Quotas for yellowfin in that region were first established in 1966. During the 1970s the European purse-seine fishery in the tropical eastern Atlantic developed quickly while the United States of America purse-seine fishery of the tropical eastern Pacific expanded offshore. In the tropical eastern Pacific a number of vessels of the United States of America either changed flags to Central and South American countries to avoid the national regulations aimed at reducing the incidental mortality of or shifted their fishing effort to the western and central Pacific Ocean, where the association of yellowfin with dolphins was not important. A purse-seine fishery for tunas began in the western Indian Ocean during the 1980s, when European vessels, which had fished in the Atlantic Ocean until then, moved to that area. In the Pacific Ocean the purse-seine fishery further expanded its fishing area, particularly in the western and central Pacific Ocean. In the Atlantic, countries such as Brazil and Venezuela entered the purse-seine fisheries. During the same period, the numbers of Japanese and Korean large-scale longliners began to decrease, whereas the fleet of Taiwan Province of China, and the numbers of vessels reflagged to countries of open registry increased rapidly. Purse seiners began fishing with artificial fish-aggregating devices (FADs) in the Atlantic Ocean early in the 1990s, and the method quickly spread to the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Fisheries management became more active and intensified during the 1990s and continues to be more active in response to stock concerns and increasing focus on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The catch by small-scale coastal longline fisheries increased greatly during the 1990s. Another important event was the development of bluefin tuna farming which can have a significant effect in increasing fishing pressure on the wild stocks, particularly by targetting on young individuals. Tuna are fished, traded, processed and consumed globally. The industrial fleets often transfer their operations from one ocean to another in response to changing conditions either in fish availability, markets, and/or fishing regulations, which makes it difficult to manage fishing capacity solely on a regional scale. In addition, the fish caught are frequently transported to other parts of the world for processing. Also, substantial IUU fishing, which occurs in all oceans in spite of recent efforts to control it, significantly complicates the management of the fisheries for tunas. In 2004 , tuna and tuna-like species classified as highly migratory in Annex 1 of UNCLOS accounted for 4.8 million tonnes, nearly 80 percent of the total reported catches of all tunas and tuna- like species. Two species, skipjack tuna and yellowfin tuna accounted for nearly 60 percent of the catch (3.5 million tonnes) in that year. Not all the catches are from the high seas however, and the portion caught outside EEZ’s varies from about 4 percent in the Western Central Pacific to almost 80 The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 13 percent in the Eastern Indian Ocean (Figures 5 and 6). In the Mediterranean, because countries have generally not declared EEZ’s, 100 percent of the catches are considered to be taken outside EEZ’s.

FIGURE 5 Proportion of highly migratory tuna and tuna-like catches made outside EEZs by major FAO statistical areas during 2000–2004, for all . highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species and all fishing gears

Tuna catches (sum of 2000 to 2004 all species) Pacific Southeast Pacific Southwest Pacific Eastern Central Pacific Western Central Pacific Northeast Pacific Northwest Indian East Indian West Atlantic Southeast

FAO areas Atlantic Southwest M editerranean Atlantic Eastern Central Atlantic Western Central Atlantic Northeast Atlantic Northwest

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage outside EEZ

FIGURE 6 Catches of all highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species for all fishing gears, 2000–2004 The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 14

3.1.3 State of the stocks This section classifies the state of exploitation of stocks of tuna and tuna-like species according to the FAO classification scheme described in section 2.2 and their state of exploitation of this species group, based on the most recent information available, is summarized in Table 1. The main sources of information are the recent FAO summaries (FAO, 2005a; 2005b). Additional information was obtained from the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). Most highly migratory tropical tunas have very high fecundity, wide geographic distribution, opportunistic behaviour and other characteristics that make them highly productive and resilient to exploitation. With proper management, they are capable of sustaining high yields, but possibilities of overexploitation and stock depletion nevertheless exist if fishery management is not adequate. Highly migratory temperate tunas have life history characteristics that make them much more sensitive to exploitation. As a result, their expected yields are lower and the risks of overexploitation are higher making it all the more important to exercise prudent management.

TABLE 1 Summary of the state of exploitation of highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species by major ocean area Major Ocean Catch (thousands of tonnes)1 State of Species/stocks 5 area 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042 exploitation Albacore Northern Pacific 81 87 89 15 n.a. F (T. alalunga) Ocean Southern Pacifc 47 47 51 50 n.a. F Ocean Mediterranean Sea 6 5 6 8 n.a. N Northern Atlantic 34 25 23 26 n.a. O Ocean South Atlantic 29 34 32 28 n.a. F Ocean Indian Ocean 38 41 33 24 n.a. M Total 235 240 233 150 216 Bigeye tuna Eastern Pacific n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. O (T. obesus) Ocean Western and Central Pacific n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. F Ocean Atlantic Ocean 102 96 76 85 n.a. F Indian Ocean 129 114 130 139 n.a. F Total 231 210 206 224 113 Pacific bluefin Pacific Ocean tuna 27 16 16 10 12 F (T. orientalis) Atlantic bluefin East Atlantic and tuna Mediterranean Sea 34 35 33 28 n.a. O (T. thynnus) West Atlantic 3 3 3 2 n.a. D Ocean Total 36 37 36 31 32 Southern bluefin Southern Oceans tuna 15 16 15 14 15 D (T. maccoyii) The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 15

Major Ocean Catch (thousands of tonnes)1 State of Species/stocks 5 area 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042 exploitation Sailfish and East Atlantic 2,3 1 1 1 1 2 N spearfish Ocean West Atlantic 1 1 2 1 1 N Ocean Total 2 2 3 3 3 Skipjack tuna Eastern Pacific 211 145 161 260 n.a. M (K. pelamis) Ocean Western Pacific 1251 1135 1295 1271 n.a. M Ocean East Atlantic 109 118 93 123 n.a. N Ocean West Atlantic 29 31 21 24 n.a. N Ocean Indian Ocean 422 426 489 475 n.a. M-F Total 2022 1855 2059 2153 2092 Atlantic and Small tuna2, 4 29 26 29 26 26 N Mediterranean Sea Yellowfin tuna Eastern Pacific 297 424 442 420 n.a. F (T. albacares) Ocean Western Pacific 435 427 414 465 n.a. N Ocean Atlantic Ocean 133 159 139 124 n.a. F Indian Ocean 307 285 305 400 M-F Total 1172 1295 1300 1408 1384 Black marlin 2 Pacific Ocean 1 2 2 3 3 N (M. indica) Blue marlin 1 Pacific Ocean 27 26 27 29 25 F (M. nigricans) Atlantic Ocean 3 3 3 3 2 O Total 30 29 30 32 27 Striped marlin Eastern Pacific n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. M (T. audax) Ocean Western Pacific n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. N Ocean Total 2 6 6 6 6 5 Atlantic white marlin Atlantic Ocean 1 <1 1 1 n.a. O (T. albidus)2 Sailfish Eastern Pacific n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. N (I. platypterus) Ocean Western Pacific n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. N Ocean Total2 4 2 3 6 6 Spearfish Eastern Pacific shortbill (T. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. N Ocean angustirostris) Western Pacific n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. N Ocean Total2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Swordfish Northeastern 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 M (X. gladius) Pacific Ocean Northwestern 10 7 7 3 10 N Pacific Ocean Southeastern 5 6 12 11 10 F Pacific Ocean The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 16

Major Ocean Catch (thousands of tonnes)1 State of Species/stocks 5 area 2000 2001 2002 2003 20042 exploitation Southwestern 3 2 3 3 3 N Pacific Ocean Western Central 4 5 8 11 8 N Pacific Ocean Mediterranean Sea 16 15 13 16 14 N North Atlantic 5 5 5 5 6 F Ocean South Atlantic 16 14 13 11 12 F Ocean Total 59 55 60 59 63 * 1 Catch data by stock area from Carocci and Majkowski (2005), unless otherwise stated 2 Catch data from FAO Fishstat 3 Include Atlantic sailfish (I. albicans) and longbill spearfish (T. pluefgeri) 4 Include Frigate tuna (A. thazard), bullet tuna (A. rochei), kawakawa (E.affinins), little tunny (E. alleteratus) black skipjack (E. lineatus) and blackfin tuna (T. Atlanticus) 5 Symbols: N = Not known; U = Underexploited; M = Moderately exploited; F = Fully exploited; O = Overexploited; D = Depleted; R = Recovering

Bluefin tuna, a temperate species most desired for sashimi, is depleted in the western Atlantic, as is southern bluefin tuna, and it is overexploited in the eastern Atlantic. The Pacific bluefin is fully exploited. Albacore, another temperate species, is used mostly for canning. The stocks are fully exploited in the South Atlantic as well as in the North and South Pacific and overexploited in the North Atlantic. Albacore is probably moderately exploited in the Indian Ocean while the state of exploitation in the Mediterranean Sea is not known. Although bigeye tuna, another species highly desired for sashimi, is tropical and has a life span shorter than bluefin, there is increasing concern that its exploitation may be too high. In addition to being overexploited, there is concern that increasing purse seine catches of small bigeye associated with FADs may negatively affect the longline catches of large bigeye, which have a much higher price. Bigeye tuna is overexploited in the eastern Pacific and is probably fully exploited elsewhere. The yellowfin tuna stocks are close to or are being fully exploited in all oceans while skipjack tuna is only moderately exploited in the Pacific and probably also in the Indian Ocean. However, with the present fishing technique, catches of skipjack cannot be increased without undesired increases of catches of other species. In the Atlantic, the state of skipjack is uncertain. The state of exploitation of many other tuna and tuna-like species is highly uncertain or unknown. Given the absence of reliable information on the state of exploitation, caution should be exercised in managing these fisheries, and it would not be prudent to allow fisheries to expand in the absence of further studies. Significant uncertainties in the state of exploitation of many billfishes represent a serious concern. In the Atlantic, blue and white marlins seem to be overexploited even though they are not generally targeted. Blue marlin is fully exploited in the eastern Pacific, but striped marlin is only moderately exploited. Because of commercial exploitation, there is more known on the state of swordfish exploitation than for other billfishes. In the Atlantic and the southeastern Pacific, swordfish are fully exploited, and there is concern about the effect of recent increases in fishing effort in the South Pacific. In the northeastern Pacific, swordfish is only moderately exploited. There is also concern about the intensification of fisheries targeting swordfish in the Indian Ocean. In summary, the scientific information available primarily from regional tuna fishery management organizations and other intergovernmental organizations indicates that none of the tuna and tuna – like species are considered underexploited. For those stocks/species area combinations in Table 1 where the state of exploitation is known (24 out of 41, or 59 percent), 21 percent are moderately exploited, 50 percent are fully exploited, 21 percent are overexploited and 8 percent (southern bluefin and bluefin in the western Atlantic) are depleted. There are probably few opportunities to increase exploitation of these species, except in some areas of the Pacific, and possibly in the Indian Ocean, where significant increases in catches of skipjack tuna might be The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 17 sustainable. However, if current fishing techniques are used, this can only be done at the expense of undesired increases in bycatch of other species, some of which may already be fully exploited or overexploited, and in need of tighter conservation measures. Based on recent reports in the popular media, the state of tuna and tuna–like fishery resources might be perceived to be much bleaker than described above. The media attention was generated by presumably authoritative scientific publications and journals. For example, Myers and Worm (2003), examining data mostly from pelagic longline fisheries for highly migratory species, concluded that there had been a 90 percent decline in abundance of these species groups. However, methodological flaws of the studies have been well documented by Walters (2003), Hampton et al. (2005) and others (see http://imina.soest.hawaii.edu/PFRP/large_pelagics/large_pelagic_predators.html for more detailed information). Aside from methodological flaws, it is worth noting that most of the reported declines occurred fifty years ago, when those fisheries started, and before management was instituted. The study also fails to mention that substantial declines (50 percent or more) from the unfished abundance are to be expected even for well managed sustainable fisheries in order to increase the productivity of the resources. The high value of tuna, and the global nature of fleets and markets aggravate the concerns about excess fleet capacity and increased risk of overexploitation and stock depletion. In recent years, the World Tuna Purse-Seine Organization (WTPSO, an industry organization) temporarily limited fishing effort by their vessels in order to decrease the overall supply of fish to increase the price. Also, the number of longline vessels has been reduced in some countries. However, these actions are not regarded as sufficient in the long term to control fishing capacity and exploitation. Most of the regional tuna fishery management organizations are attempting to address the issue of tuna-fishing capacity in their areas of responsibility, in addition to the management of stocks through catch and fishing effort controls. However, the problem of managing tuna-fishing capacity is complex, involving biological, socio-economic and technological issues, whereas the conventions of most, if not all, of the tuna fishery management organizations do not address the social and economic aspects of fishery management. Industrial tuna fleets are highly mobile and the principal market tunas are intensively traded on the global scale. In addition, many tuna research, conservation and management problems are similar in all oceans. Therefore, there is a need for exchange of information and for collaboration on the global scale regarding fisheries, fisheries research and fisheries management for tunas and other species with wide global distribution.

3.2 Oceanic sharks Sharks covered under this heading are those listed in Annex 1 of UNCLOS: Bluntnose sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), thresher sharks (family Alopiidae), whale shark (Rhincodon typus), requiem sharks (family Carcharhinidae), hammerhead, bonnethead, or scoophead sharks (family Sphyrnidae), and the mackerel sharks (family Lamnidae) (it is noted that in UNCLOS the family Lamnidae is listed as Isurida, using an old family name). The total reported catches of species and families of sharks, listed in the Annex 1 of UNCLOS, was close to 100 000 tonnes in 2004. The requiem sharks (Carcharinidae) account for 90 percent of these catches. However, the total catch and mortality of sharks (such as discarded bycatch) is likely to be much larger than the reported catch. Unfortunately, the state of many shark populations is unknown, or poorly known. However, the life history characteristics of sharks (e.g. slow growth, long life span, low fecundity) make them particularly vulnerable to overexploitation and depletion and therefore, such sharks should be managed with caution. Due to the nature of the available information, this section dealing with oceanic sharks provides descriptions of resources, fisheries and their state of exploitation on a species by species, as well covering fisheries and state of exploitation separately. An FAO report (Castro, Woodley and Brudek, 1999) prepared in support of the International Plans of Action for Conservation and Management of Sharks, FAO catalogues (Compagno, 1984a; 1984b; 2001), other FAO sources, and Fishbase, provided information on the biological characteristics and geographical distribution of oceanic sharks. When available, drawings from the FAO databases and Species Identification Programme have been included in the text. This report intentionally gives greater emphasis to reviewing the biology of The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 18 oceanic sharks than for tuna and tuna-like species, because the biology of the latter is more readily available in other reviews. FIGURE 7 3.2.1 Bluntnose sixgill shark Bluntnose sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus) Bluntnose sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus) (Figures 7 and 8) has an almost circumglobal distribution in tropical and temperate seas on the continental and insular shelves and upper slopes at depths from surface to at least 1 875 m, FIGURE 8 but it is mostly a deepwater shark. It is locally Geographic distribution of the bluntnose sixgill common and taken by line gear, gillnets, traps shark (Hexanchus griseus) (from Compagno, 1984a) and pelagic and bottom trawls, for use fresh, frozen, dried salted for human consumption, and for fishmeal and oil. It is also the subject of dive tourism on the Canadian Pacific coast. There are no assessment of the state of the stock(s) or exploitation. Catches have been reported only from the Atlantic Ocean since 2001 (one tonne) with up to 30 tonnes in 2004.

3.2.2 Basking shark FIGURE 9 Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) The basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) (Figures 9 and 10), is a coastal-pelagic shark found in boreal to warm temperate waters of the continental and insular shelves, occurring from well offshore to near shore just beyond the surf zone. It occurs around all the continents except Antarctica and the Arctic. Surface basking in this shark is thought to be related to feeding on surface concentrations of food , and FIGURE 10 courtship and mating, although the species is Geographic distribution of the basking shark also known to feed on plankton aggregations in (Cetorhinus maximus) (from Compagno, 2001) deep waters on the edge of continental shelves. Basking sharks undertake long-distance migrations. The basking shark has been the target of harpoon fisheries from small boats, but it has also been taken in nets, including bottom gillnets and occasionally bottom and pelagic trawls. The species also interacts with other gears, causing gear damage and harming themselves in the process. The basking shark has been exploited commercially for centuries in several parts of the world mainly for its oil, which was used as lighting fuel for lamps in the past, and during this century as a source of chemical compounds. Several localized basking shark fisheries have shown sharp declines recently and in the past, but it is difficult to separate natural fluctuations in local abundance from the effects of exploitation globally. The basking shark are likely to be extremely vulnerable to overexploitation, perhaps more so than most sharks, and this can be ascribed to its slow growth rate, advanced age of maturity, long gestation period, low fecundity (like all sharks), and probable small size of existing populations. Reported catches in excess of 8 000 tonnes (Figure 11) were common during 1960 to 1980, but they have been much less since the end of the 1990s. In 2004, 239 tonnes were reported. The species is probably overexploited globally with some areas being depleted. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 19

The basking shark is listed on FIGURE 11 Annex II to the Protocol Catches of basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) reported to FAO ‘Endangered or Threatened 20 Basking shark - Cetorhinus maximus Species’ of the Barcelona 18 Convention for the Protection of Pacific, Southwest (neglidgible) 16 the Mediterranean Sea and in M editerranean & Black Sea (neglidgible) Appendix II of the Convention on 14 Atlantic, Northeast

International Trade in Endangered 12 Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It is legally protected by 10 several countries (such as UK, 8 Malta, US Federal waters) and 6

targeting basking sharks is Catch (thousand tonnes) prohibited in New Zealand. 4

2

0 3.2.3 Thresher sharks 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 (family Alopiidae) There are three species of thresher sharks (family Alopiidae): Alopias pelagicus, Alopias superciliosus and Alopias vulpinus. All three species are believed to occur in temperate and tropical waters of all oceans. Given their life-history characteristics, FIGURE 12 these species are not expected to have a high Thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus) resilience to exploitation, but stock status remains uncertain. Unless demonstrated otherwise, it is prudent to consider these species as being fully exploited or overexploited globally. Alopias pelagicus (Figures 12 and 13) was formerly exploited by longline fisheries in the northwestern Indian Ocean, but it is also fished in the Central Pacific. It is utilized for its (for FIGURE 13 Geographic distribution of the pelagic thresher human consumption), liver oil for vitamin-A (Alopias pelagicus) (from Compagno, 2001) extraction, hides for leather, and fins for shark-fin soup. Alopias superciliosus (Figures 14 and 15), commonly known as the bigeye thresher shark, has been caught in the oceanic longline fisheries operating in the northwestern Indian Ocean, western and Central Pacific, eastern North Pacific and North Atlantic. This species is also taken as incidental bycatch in fixed bottom and pelagic nets and in trawls. FIGURE 14 Bigeye thresher shark (Alopias superciliosus) FIGURE 15 Geographic distribution of the bigeye thresher (Alopias superciliosus) (from Compagno, 2001) The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 20

Alopias vulpinus (Figures 16 and 17) is FIGURE 16 frequently caught by offshore longline and Thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) pelagic gill net fisheries. It is also fished with anchored bottom and surface gill nets, and it is a bycatch of other gear including bottom trawls and fish traps. The species became the object of an important targeted pelagic gill net fishery off the west coast of the United States of America (particularly California, and also Washington and Oregon) in the late 1970s, with a peak reported catch of 1 000 tonnes in 1982 (not reported in FIGURE 17 FAO statistics), declining due to overfishing to Geographic distribution of the thresher (Alopias less than 300 tonnes by the late 1980s. The vulpinus) (from Compagno, 2001) targeted fishery was ended by 1990, but the species is still caught as bycatch of the swordfish gill net fishery and may be sold for higher prices in the market than swordfish. Catches of Alopiidae that have been reported to FAO since the early 1980s have generally been less than 1 600 tonnes (Figure 18) and around 1 000 tonnes since 1998 (972 tonnes in 2004). Apparently, not all catches are reported to FAO, given the 1 000 tonnes referred to in the paragraph above.

FIGURE 18 Catches of thresher sharks (family Alopiidae) as reported to FAO

2,000

Sharks - Alopiidae 1, 8 0 0 Pacific Ocean 1, 6 0 0 Atlantic Ocean 1, 4 0 0

1, 2 0 0

1, 0 0 0

800 Catch (tonnes) 600

400

200

0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 21

3.2.4 Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) FIGURE 19 Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) (Figures 19 and Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) 20) has a circumglobal distribution in tropical and warm temperate seas. It is an epipelagic oceanic and coastal pelagic species ranging from far offshore to close inshore, sometimes entering lagoons of coral atolls. It is generally encountered close to or at the surface, as solitary individuals or in aggregations of up to hundreds of sharks. Whale sharks migrate long distances, FIGURE 20 with their movements probably timed with Geographic distribution of the whale shark plankton blooms and changes in water (Rhincodon typus) (from Compagno, 2001) temperatures. They are often associated with schools of , especially scombrids. Whale sharks have been fished sporadically by some countries around the Indian and Western Pacific Oceans, but no catches are recorded in the FAO fisheries statistics database. Given its life-history characteristics, the whale shark is expected to have low resilience to exploitation, with most recent fisheries having collapsed or ceased due to legal protection, but the state of stocks remains uncertain in most areas. Unless demonstrated otherwise, it is prudent to consider the species as being fully exploited globally. Whale sharks are currently protected in several parts of the world: Western Australia, India, The Maldives, The Philippines, and in parts of the United States of America (Florida state waters and all federal waters of the Gulf of México and Atlantic coast). The whale shark is listed on Appendix II of both the Convention on Migratory Species and CITES.

3.2.5 Requiem sharks (family Carcharhinidae) Requiem sharks (family Carcharhinidae), have a worldwide distribution in tropical and temperate waters. There are 50 species in the family (30 in genus Carcharinus) which is, by far, the most important shark family for fisheries in the tropics. The main species from a fisheries point of view are: Carcharhinus falciformis, Carcharhinus signatus, Carcharinus longimanus, Carcharinus sorrah and Prionace glauca. However, Carcharinus sorrah is not an oceanic species and it is not considered further. The silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) FIGURE 21 (Figure 21), has an oceanic and coastal, Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) circumtropical distribution and most common offshore. It is an oceanic, epipelagic and littoral, tropical shark, found near the edge of continental and insular shelves, as well as far from land in the open sea, to depths of 500 m. It occasionally occurs inshore where the water is as shallow as 18 m. It is an active, quick- moving, aggressive shark. Its population dynamics and stock structure are poorly known. This is one of the three most common oceanic sharks, along with the blue shark (Prionace glauca) and oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharinus longimanus), and one of the more abundant large marine organisms. It is very commonly taken by pelagic longline fisheries, and occasionally by fixed bottom nets. The state of exploitation is unknown. Its wide distribution and high abundance in most tropical shelves of the world suggests that presently there are no major concerns over the conservation of this species globally. The silky shark is at present relatively free of threats in the form of habitat destruction because it does not live inshore nor does it utilize coastal lagoons as pupping or nursery areas like The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 22 other shark species. In 2004 slightly more than 4 000 tonnes were reported, but past catches have been considerably higher. Whitetip shark (Carcharinus longimanus), is an oceanic shark found in tropical and warm- temperate waters of the Atlantic, possibly in the Mediterranean Sea, in the Western Indian Ocean and in the Pacific. It is usually found far offshore in the open sea but it sometimes occurs in water as shallow as 37 m inshore, particularly off oceanic islands or in continental areas where the shelf is very narrow. It is regularly caught with pelagic longlines, also handlines and occasionally pelagic and even bottom trawls. It is utilized fresh, smoked and dried salted for human consumption, for hides, for fins (processed into the ingredients for shark-fin soup), and for liver oil (extracted for vitamins) and fishmeal. Although it is one of the most common oceanic sharks, recorded catches total only 187 tonnes in 2004. FIGURE 22 Blue shark (Prionace glauca) (Figure 22), Blue shark (Prionace glauca) has a worldwide distribution in temperate and tropical oceanic waters. It is one of the most abundant and the most heavily fished shark in the world, often as bycatch in pelagic longlines fisheries, but also on hook-and-lines, in pelagic trawls, and even bottom trawls near the coasts. In 2004 more than 36 000 tonnes were recorded. Catches of requiem sharks FIGURE 23 (Figure 23) reported to FAO were Catches of requiem sharks (family Carcharhinidae) less than 10 000 tonnes in the 1950s, as reported to FAO increasing to 40–50 000 tonnes in the 10 0 Sharks - Carcharhinidae 1960s and 1970s. After a brief 90 decline in the early 1980s, reported Pacific Ocean 80 catches have increased more or less Indian Ocean steadily to more than 87 000 tonnes 70 Atlantic Ocean in 2004. Catches are reported from the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific 60 Oceans with blue shark, spot-tail 50 shark (Carcharinus sorrah, a coastal 40 non-oceanic species taken primarily within EEZs) and silky shark being 30 Catch (thousand tonnes) the most important species. 20

3.2.6 Hammerhead, 10 0 bonnethead and scoophead 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 sharks (family Sphyrnidae) The family Sphyrnidae comprises nine species: the (Eusphyra blochii), the scalloped bonnethead (Sphyrna corona), the whitefin hammerhead (Sphyrna couardi), the scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini), the scoophead (Sphyrna media), the (Sphyrna mokarran), the bonnethead (Sphyrna tiburo), the (Sphyrna tudes), and the (Sphyrna zygaena). The members of the family are considered coastal; occasionally occurring in brackish water with a global distribution mostly in warm waters. Although all species are caught, only the scalloped hammerhead and the smooth hammerhead are reported as individual species in the FAO statistics. The smooth hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena) was believed to be an amphitemperate species (i.e. occurs in temperate water in the northern and southern hemispheres, absent from the tropics), but it is now known to occur in the tropics. It has a circumglobal distribution. It is an active, common, coastal- pelagic and semi-oceanic species. It is caught with pelagic longlines, handlines, as well as bottom and pelagic trawls.

The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 23

The scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna FIGURE 24 lewini) (Figure 24) has essentially a Scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini) circumglobal distribution in coastal and semi- oceanic warm temperate and tropical seas. It occurs over continental and insular shelves and in deep water adjacent to them, often approaching close inshore and entering enclosed bays and estuaries. Its depth range is from the intertidal at the surface to depths of about 275 m. It is probably the most abundant hamerhead. This species is apparently highly mobile and in part migratory, forming huge schools of small migrating individuals. Owing to its abundance, the species is common in inshore artisanal and small scale commercial fisheries, as well as offshore operations. It is caught with pelagic longlines, fixed bottom longlines, fixed bottom nets, and even bottom and pelagic FIGURE 25 Catches of hammerhead, bonnethead, or scoophead sharks trawls. The young are easily caught (family Sphyrnidae) as reported to FAO on light longline gear. Given its life- history characteristics, the scalloped 3 is expected to Sharks - Sphyrnidae have very low resilience to exploitation and fisheries for the 3 Pacific Ocean species should be managed with Indian Ocean (negligible) Atlantic Ocean great caution. Although its 2 worldwide distribution and known high abundance gives the species 2 some protection globally, the risk of local depletions remains a serious concern. 1

Catches of Sphyrnidae have Catch (thousand tonnes) been reported only from the Atlantic 1 Ocean since 1991 (Figure 25). The catch was near 2 200 tonnes in 2004. 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

3.2.7 Mackerel sharks FIGURE 26 The great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Mackerel sharks (currently family Lamnidae, although UNCLOS Annex 1 refers to them as Isurida) have a worldwide distribution in temperate and tropical seas. There are five species in the Lamnidae family: the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), the longfin mako (Isurus paucus), the salmon shark (Lamna ditropis), and the porbeagle (Lamna FIGURE 27 nasus). Geographic distribution of the great white shark The great white shark (Carcharodon (Carcharodon carcharias) (from Compagno, 2001) carcharias) (Figure 26 and 27), is mostly amphitemperate found in coastal and offshore areas of continental and insular shelves. Its depth range goes from the surface to below 1 000 m and individuals have been observed to cross ocean basins and enter deep tropical waters during migration (Bonfil et al., 2005). The great white shark is of little interest to commercial The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 24 fisheries, but its sensitivity to harvest has led to its listing on CITES Appendix II in 2004. It is also listed on Annex II to the Protocol “Endangered or Threatened Species” of the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea, and protected by several countries including South Africa, Australia, United States of America, Malta. The shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) (Figures 28 and 29) is a coastal and oceanic FIGURE 28 Shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) circumglobal species found in temperate and tropical waters, generally warmer than 16°C. It occurs from the surface down to at least 150 m. The shortfin mako may be the fastest shark and one of the swiftest and most active fishes. This is an important species for longline fisheries where it occurs, because of its high quality meat. It is also a prime fish prized by sport anglers. Given its life-history characteristics, the shortfin mako is expected FIGURE 29 to have medium resilience to exploitation Geographic distribution of the shortfin mako (relative to other sharks). Its worldwide (Isurus oxyrinchus) (from Compagno, 2001) distribution and relatively high abundance in some areas probably means it is not currently at risk, but like all elasmobranch it can be easily overfished and localized depletion is always a risk. According to ICCAT (2005) the possibility that the biomass in the north Atlantic is below that producing MSY cannot be ruled out, but it in the south Atlantic it is probably above. FIGURE 30 The longfin mako (Isurus paucus) Longfin mako shark (Isurus paucus) (Figures 30 and 31) is an oceanic, warm water, epipelagic species, probably circumtropical, but records are sporadic with the result that the distribution is poorly known. The species is probably often mistaken for the apparently far more common shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) or included with records for it. However, it was apparently common in the western Atlantic and possibly in the Central Pacific (whether it is still common is unknown), but rare elsewhere. It is probably FIGURE 31 Geographic distribution of the longfin mako (Isurus taken regularly in tropical pelagic longline paucus) (from Compagno, 2001) fisheries for tuna and swordfish as bycatch. In addition to longlines, the species is taken with hooks and lines and with anchored gill nets. Little is known about the state of longfin mako shark populations. Without such information, management should be cautious with fisheries that catch this species.

The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 25

The salmon shark (Lamna ditropis) (Figures FIGURE 32 32 and 33) is a common coastal-littoral, offshore Salmon shark (Lamna ditropis) and epipelagic shark, found in cool waters of the north Pacific, at depths from the surface to below 150 m. Salmon sharks are common in continental offshore waters but range inshore to just off beaches; they also are abundant far from land in the North Pacific Ocean basin. This species has been fished in the North Pacific in the past by oceanic longliners and offshore gillnetters. They are also caught in salmon seines, by salmon FIGURE 33 trollers towing hooks, and possibly by bottom Geographic distribution of the salmon shark trawlers off Alaska. They are occasionally (Lamna ditropis) (from Compagno, 2001) trammel-netted by halibut fishermen off California and as bycatch in gillnets set for swordfish and threshers sharks off California. Sports anglers in Alaska and Canada catch salmon sharks using rod and reel much like porbeagle anglers in the North Atlantic. The species is considered heavily fished even though most of the catch is discarded bycatch. It has a negative image as an abundant and low- value pest that avidly eats or damages valuable salmon and wrecks gear, which encourages fishers to kill it. Knowledge of its biology is limited despite its abundance, but its fecundity is very low and the species probably cannot sustain current fishing pressure for extended periods. The porbeagle (Lamna nasus) (Figures 34 and FIGURE 34 35) is a coastal and oceanic, amphitemperate Porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) species, with its centres of distribution in the North Atlantic, and in a circumglobal band of temperate water of the southern Atlantic, southern Indian, southern Pacific and Antarctic Oceans. The porbeagle is most abundant on the continental offshore fishing banks, but it is also found far from land in ocean basins and occasionally close inshore. This shark usually occurs in cold water, less than 18°C and down to 1°C. The porbeagle is found at the surface down to depths of about 350 m or more, FIGURE 35 singly and in schools and feeding aggregations. Geographic distribution of the porbeagle (Lamna may come inshore and to the surface in nasus) (from Compagno, 2001) summer, and over- winter offshore beneath the surface. Catches in Europe indicate that the porbeagle segregates by size (age) and gender. Porbeagles of the western North Atlantic seem to constitute a single stock that undertakes extensive migrations between southern Newfoundland (Canada) in summer to at least Massachusetts (USA) in the winter. Longterm tagging data suggest that there is no mixing between this population and that of the eastern North Atlantic. Porbeagles breed on both sides of the North Atlantic. This species has been heavily fished commercially and utilized for human consumption in the temperate North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, but is also caught as bycatch in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. it is the second most common shark taken as bycatch of the New Zealand longline fishery). Stocks in the North Atlantic have shown signs of serious overexploitation as indicated by a large decline in catch. The western Atlantic stock is currently considered overexploited. For the northeast Atlantic, ICES (2005) concluded that the stock is depleted and no fishery should be permitted. In the The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 26 past, porbeagles were considered a nuisance to commercial fishermen FIGURE 36 because they wrecked light gear set Catches of mackerel sharks (family Lamnidae) as reported to FAO for bony fishes (such as cod nets) and bit fish off hooks. Porbeagle are 12 an important bycatch of Japanese Sharks - Lamnidae longliners and probably of the 10 Southern Ocean (negligible) pelagic fishing fleets of other Pacific Ocean countries fishing in the southern 8 Indian Ocean (negligible) Indian Ocean and elsewhere in the Atlantic Ocean Southern Hemisphere, where 6 information on catches is poor and may be little-utilized except for fins. Reported catches of Lamnidae 4

increased sharply from less than Catch (thousand tonnes) 2 000 tonnes in the mid 1950s to 2 almost 10 000 tonnes in 1963

(Figure 36). More recently, reported 0 catches have increased steadily from 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 about 1 000 tonnes in the early 1980s to almost 6 500 tonnes in 2004, mostly shortfin mako (5 000 tonnes) and porbeagle (1 000 tonnes) sharks.

3.2.8 The fisheries As highlighed in FAO (2000b), sharks are long-lived, slow-growing, and producing few offspring. These characteristics are associated with low productivity. They imply that the production of recruits is closely linked to the spawning stock of adults. Stock recovery should be expected to be slow in the event that overexploitation depletes stocks. The number of shark species is small compared with the number of species of bony fishes, but they occupy a variety of habitats from near shore to the ocean abyss. They are most numerous at depths less than 200 m in tropical and warm temperate . Shark fisheries pre-date recorded history, and every part of these has been used for some purpose. is important food consumed fresh, dried, salted or smoked. In many communities fins of sharks are among the world’s most expensive fishery products. Shark cartilage and other products are increasingly sought for medicinal purposes. Few fisheries use the whole however: some use only the meat, others only use the fins, or livers or skin. In the majority of cases where only a portion of the animal is used, the rest is discarded at sea, which makes species identification of the catch difficult. Fisheries for sharks are common throughout the world and use a variety of fishing gears and vessels. Sharks are taken mainly by gillnet and hook or trawl in industrial and artisanal fisheries. Small amounts are taken in traditional and recreational fisheries (game fishers and divers) and in beach gillnet and drumline fishing as bather protection programmes. There are several fisheries directed at one or a small number of species of shark, but most sharks are taken in multispecies fisheries where the fishers tend to target more highly valued traditional bony fish species. The following categories of shark fisheries can be identified: coastal hook and gillnet fisheries, demersal trawl bycatch fisheries, deepwater bycatch fisheries, pelagic bycatch fisheries (primarily bycatch in tuna longline and purse seine fisheries) and freshwater shark fisheries. Since most shark catch is taken as bycatch, most of the catch is reported as unidentified shark, mixed fish or is not reported at all. This lack of species identification of the catches and lack of information on fishing effort means basic data for fishery assessment are not available for most species. An important concern about fisheries that catch sharks is that harvest strategies designed to maximize economic and social benefits from multi-species fisheries have a high probability of depleting the least productive species (such as sharks), unless methods for making fishing more selective (thus able to avoid overfishing vulnerable species like sharks) are developed and The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 27 implemented. As fishing effort increases, older and larger individuals and larger species disappear from the assemblage to be replaced by smaller counterparts. This results in a gradual drift towards shorter-lived, faster-growing species, which negatively effects biodiversity.

3.2.9 State of the stocks The state of the stocks has been described under each species. In general, sharks are vulnerable to overexploitation and depletion, especially locally. In the absence of stock specific information on the state of fisheries and fishery resources, it is prudent to consider the state of shark populations as being at least fully exploited, and to apply a precautionary approach to management. The general state of exploitation of oceanic sharks is summarized in Table 2, where it is shown that of the 33 species group-area combination, 13 are unknown (39 percent). Of the remaining 20, none are considered underexploited or recovering, 10 percent are considered moderately exploited, 35 percent fully exploited, 40 percent overexploited, and 15 percent depleted.

TABLE 2 Summary of the state of exploitation of oceanic sharks Catches State of Species/stock 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 exploitation Bluntnose sixgill shark 1 7 2 30 N (Hexanchus griseus) Basking shark 389 287 180 505 239 O-D (Cetorhinus maximus) Thresher shark N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A F-O (Alopias pelagicus) Thresher shark 5 2 16 163 F-O (Alopias superciliosus) Thresher shark 654 614 464 423 321 F-O (Alopias vulpinus) Thresher shark (Alopias spp.) 519 599 454 714 488 Whale shark N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A F (Rhincodon typus) 11 680 9 330 8 384 5 305 4 358 N - M (Carcharhinus falciformis) Whitetip shark 175 187 N (Carcharhinus longimanus) Blue shark (Prionace glauca) 18 605 20 545 23 493 31 194 36 647 N Winghead shark N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Eusphyra blochii) Scalloped bonnethead N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Sphyrna corona) Whitefin hammerhead N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Sphyrna couardi) Scalloped hammerhead 38 515 798 139 491 F-O (Sphyrna lewini) Scoophead (Sphyrna media) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Great hammerhead N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Sphyrna mokarran) Bonnethead (Sphyrna tiburo) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Smalleye hammerhead N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Sphyrna tudes) Smooth hammerhead 35 27 40 119 207 N (Sphyrna zygaena) Sphyrnidae 2 008 2 217 1 996 2 369 1 477 The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 28

Catches State of Species/stock 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 exploitation Great white shark 2 4 D (Carcharodon carcharias) Shortfin mako 2 853 3 344 5 615 5 937 4 948 M-F-O (Isurus oxyrinchus) Longfin mako 4 3 1 1 N (Isurus paucus) Salmon shark N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A F-O (Lamna ditropis) Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) 2 865 2 135 1 010 1 031 1 380 O-D

As for tuna and tuna-like species, the status of oceanic sharks fishery resources have been described as being considerably worse than is indicated above (e.g. Baum et al., 2003; Baum and Myers, 2004). Scientists involved in the assessments of northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico sharks while agreeing that there have been declines in the populations of some species, believe that the magnitude of the changes are smaller than those reported in the aforementioned presumably authoritative publications (Burgess et al., 2005)

3.3 Other highly migratory species The species in this section, unlike tunas and to some extent sharks, have not attracted large or high profile fisheries. Therefore, there is little information about these species and their state of exploitation, other than reported catches and some information on their biological characheristics and geographical distribution, summarized in the FAO Species Identification and Data Programme (SIDP) web site, Fishbase and other FAO information resources.

3.3.1 Pomfrets The pomfrets (family Bramidae) include eight genera and 21 species. Annex I of UNCLOS refers to the family Bramidae without listing individual species. Thus all 21 species are considered Highly Migratory with respect to UNCLOS The Bramidae is a family of pelagic, benthopelagic and bathypelagic fishes found in temperate and tropical waters of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. The main characteristic of most of the species is that they are oceanodromous, that is, they migrate within oceans typically between spawning and different feeding areas, with migrations being cyclical, predictable and covering more than 100 km. The worldwide landings of pomfrets are FIGURE 37 poorly documented. The FAO fishery statistics The Atlantic pomfret (Brama brama) database lists Atlantic pomfret (Brama brama) (Figure 37), Pomfrets, and ocean breams not elsewhere included (nei). Maximum landings were close to 18 000 tonnes in 2001, from eighteen countries fishing in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, but in 2004 7 000 tonnes were recorded (Figure 38). Because pomfrets are mostly caught as a bycatch in other fisheries, there is very limited biological information on the species. Pomfrets are included in management plans in the United States of America and Australia, but they do not appear to be assessed by international fisheries bodies. Although their state of exploitation is not known, they are unlikely to be overexploited. According to the FAO (2005a), they appear to be fully exploited in the eastern Indian Ocean, and moderately exploited in the southwest Pacific. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 29

FIGURE 38 Catches of pomfrets and ocean breams as reported to FAO

20 Pomfrets and Ocean breams

18 Pacific Ocean 16 Atlantic Ocean 14

12

10

8

6 Catch (thousand tonnes) 4

2

0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

3.3.2 Sauries Sauries belong to the family. The species included in Annex 1 of UNCLOS are the Atlantic saury (Scomberesox saurus), the Pacific saury (Cololabis saira), the saury (C. adocetus), and the king gar (Scomberesox saurus scombroides). The list contains three species and one subspecies belonging to one of the species cited. The species Scomberesox saurus has two subspecies: S. saurus saurus and S. saurus scombroides. It is therefore assumed that Scomberesox saurus in Annex 1 is Scomberesox saurus saurus. All these species are pelagic, schooling and oceanodromous. The Atlantic saury (Scomberesox saurus FIGURE 39 saurus) lives near the surface in the north Atlantic, The Pacific saury (Cololabis saira) in the Baltic Sea and throughout the Mediterranean. The Pacific saury (Cololabis saira) (Figures 39 and 40), is widely distributed in the north Pacific. It is generally found offshore, usually near the surface and migrates seasonally. It is the object of a substantial fishery and is a FIGURE 40 popular fish in Japan. Most of the reported catches Geographic distribution of the Pacific saury (Cololabis saira) (from Eschmeyer, Herald and are from this species. The saury (C. adocetus), is a Hammann, 1983) tropical species of the Eastern Pacific. The king gar (Scomberesox saurus scombroides) lives in brackish and marine waters, it is only of minor commercial importance and it occurs in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans with circumglobal distribution in temperate waters of the southern hemisphere. Only six countries have reported saury landings to FAO. Landings have fluctuated between 200 000 tonnes and 600 000 tonnes since 1950, without a clear long term trend since the early 1970s (Figure 41). Japan accounts for 49 percent to 98 percent of the reported total landings. The Pacific saury accounts for more than 95 percent of the reported landings. Slightly more than 350 000 tonnes were reported in 2004. Similar to pomfrets, sauries are included in national management plans in some countries but they are not a species of direct interest for international fisheries bodies. Although their state of exploitation is not known, sauries are unlikely to be overexploited. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 30

FIGURE 41 Catches of sauries as reported to FAO

700 Sauries

Pacific Ocean 600 Atlantic Ocean (negligible)

500

400

300

200 Catch (thousand tonnes)

10 0

0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

3.3.3 Dolphinfish The two dolphinfishes of the Coryphaenidae family, the common dolphinfish (Coryphaena FIGURE 42 The common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) hippurus) and the Pompano dolphinfish (Coryphaena equiselis), are included in Annex 1 of UNCLOS. Both species follow boats and associate with floating objects which may be used as attracting devices in fisheries. FIGURE 43 Geographic distribution of the common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) The common dolphinfish (Coryphaena (modified from Collette, 1999) hippurus) (Figures 42 and 43) is generally common in most warm and temperate seas, at 21º to 30º C in the Atlantic (including the Mediterranean), the Western and Eastern Indian ocean and in the Western Central Pacific. It is an epipelagic species (i.e living or feeding in surface waters to depths of 200 m). FIGURE 44 The Pompano dolphinfish Catches of dolphinfish as reported to FAO (Coryphaena equiselis) has a 60 worldwide distribution in tropical and subtropical seas. It is primarily Dolphinfish 50 an oceanic species but may enter Pacific Ocean coastal waters. Indian Ocean More than forty countries 40 Atlantic Ocean reported dolphinfish landings to

FAO (C. hippurus only). Reported 30 landings show a sustained increasing trend from 7 000 tonnes in 1950 to almost 50 000 tonnes in the early 20

2000s (Figure 44). Slightly more Catch (thousand tonnes) than 50 000 tonnes were reported in 10 2003 and 2004. Seven reporting entities have consistently declared 0 landings since 1950. The Pacific 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 31

Ocean accounts for more than the half of catches, with Japan and Taiwan Province of China being by far the largest contributors. Some dolphinfish fisheries within EEZs are actively managed, sometimes using interesting spatial approaches (e.g. the lampuki fishery in Malta). Although the state of exploitation is not known, dolphinfish are unlikely to be overexploited.

3.3.4 State of the stocks As discussed above, the state of exploitation of other highly migratory species of pomfrets, sauries and dolphinfish is poorly known or not known, and in most cases there is not even reliable information on catches. Nevertheless, in some cases a more or less educated guess of the most likely state of exploitation is possible based on fragmented information on life history patterns, geographical distribution, and available catches. This information is summarized in Table 3. Pomfrets are moderately or fully exploited in the Indian Ocean, while the state of sauries and dolphinfish is unknown, but based on available information it seems unlikely that they are being overexploited. Thus, would be either moderately or fully exploited, although this will need to be confirmed, particularly, prior to any further expansion of the exploitation.

TABLE 3 Summary of the state of exploitation of selected other highly migratory species

Catches State of Species/stock exploitation 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Pomfrets (several 10 038 17 732 6 692 4 389 6 996 M-F species) Sauris (several species) 306 550 381 344 337 554 457 003 357 632 N(M-F?) Dolphinfish 42 698 47 554 48 651 53 676 52 657 N(M-F?) (Coryphaena spp.)

4. SELECTED STRADDLING FISH STOCKS The list of straddling stocks in FAO (1994) was taken as a starting point for this review. Enquiries were sent to Regional Fisheries Bodies soliciting regional knowledge to refine the lists. Information was received for the Northeast and the Southeast Atlantic. For the Northwest and Southwest Atlantic, and the Northeast, Eastern Central and Southeast Pacific, staff of the FAO Fisheries Department or its consultants applied their own informed judgements. For the Western and Eastern Central Atlantic, the Southwest Pacific and for the Indian Ocean, catches by country (within statistical areas) were examined to determine which species were being reported by non-coastal States which were presumed to be fishing on the high seas. This information was tempered by knowledge of situations where distant water fishing countries have access agreements to EEZ, particularly when the species in the reported catch were not known to be in commercial abundance on the high seas. Using this approach, a refined list of species (by FAO statistical area) likely to be fished as straddling stock and other high seas fish stock was prepared. This included 129 species/stocks and a brief description of the main, straddling stocks by major area as given below and in Section 5 the same is done for the other high seas fish stocks. An examination of the continental shelves, defined for the purpose of this review by the 200 metres depth contour, and the 200 nm contour from the coastline which generally corresponds to EEZs (Figure 45), suggests that there are several areas where stocks of demersal fishes associated with the continental shelves could be straddling: a small area north of Russia and the United States in the North Pacific, a small area off Argentina in the Southeast Atlantic, the nose and tail of the Newfoundland Grand Bank off Canada in the Northwest Atlantic, an area between and Russia in the Northeast Atlantic (the so-called Loop Hole), an area off Mauritius and the Seychelles in the Western Indian Ocean, and another area off the Russian EEZ in the Northwest Pacific ocean. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 32

Other known areas of straddling stocks are the “Donut Hole” in the middle of the Bering Sea in the Northeast Pacific, the “Peanut Hole” in the Sea of Hokhotsk in the Northwest Pacific, the Challenger Plateau west of New Zealand and the South Tasmanian Rise in the Eastern Indian ocean. This implies that the U.S.A, Russia, Argentina, Canada, Norway, Australia, and New Zealand are the coastal States most likely affected or potentially affected by demersal straddling stocks problems. Meltzer (2005) comes to a similar conclusion about areas with the potential of straddling stocks, highlighting in addition the Eastern Central Atlantic (FAO Area 34) off West Africa, the Southwest Atlantic (FAO Area 41) and off almost the entire east coast of South America.

FIGURE 45 Continental shelf areas within and beyond the 200 nm limit off the coast

The main species that constitute straddling stocks are generally well studied (e.g. cod, , ) compared to several highly migratory species, particularly the non-tunas. Such information is readily available from various published sources of information or reports or web pages from regional fishery bodies. Therefore, this document does not review the biology, and life history and migratory behaviour of these species. As indicated before, there is no global database distinguishing between catches of straddling stocks within and outside EEZ’s. Therefore, graphs of catches are not presented in this section except for the southern Ocean, where we report on all of the species fished in the CCAMLR convention area as if they were straddling stocks.

4.1. Pacific Ocean

4.1.1 Northwest Pacific Straddling stocks in the Northwest Pacific include Alaska () pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), flying (Ommastrephes bartrami), Boreal clubhook squid (Onychoteuthys borealjaponica), Boreopacific armhook squid (Gonatopsis borealis), Pacific Ocean (Sebastes alutus), pelagic armourhead (Pentaceros richardsoni) and the alfonsino (Beryx splendens). Based on FAO (2005a), the pollock is considered fully exploited while the vary from moderately to fully exploited, and in some cases recovering. Based on reported landings, the is considered depleted, while the state of pelagic armourhead and alfonsino is not known. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 33

4.1.2 Northeast Pacific Straddling stocks in the northeast Pacific include Jack mackerel ( picturatus symmetricus) and Alaska (Walleye) pollock (Theragra chalcogramma). The Jack mackerel is moderately exploited and the is fully exploited.

4.1.3 Western Central Pacific There is no information on straddling stocks in the Western Central Pacific.

4.1.4 Eastern Central Pacific According to FAO (2005a) the straddling stocks of jumbo flying squid (Dosidicus gigas) are moderately to fully exploited in the Eastern Central Pacific, horse mackerel (Trachurus spp.) is underexploited, and ( japonicus) is moderately exploited.

4.1.5 Southwest Pacific There exist two types of straddling fish stocks in the southwest Pacific. Stocks belonging to the more common type are associated with continental shelves while stocks belonging to the less common type are associated with small islands with limited shelves whose fishery depend on oceanic resources found both within and outside their EEZ’s. Species with straddling stocks associated with continental shelves include orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus), oreo dories (Allocyttus verrucosus, A. niger, Neocyttus rhomboidalis, Pseudocyttus maculatus) and hoki (Macruronus novaezealandiae). Straddling oceanic resources include the narrow-barred Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson), oceanic squids, and . Based on FAO (2005a), orange roughy, oreo dories and hoki are fully exploited to overexploited. The Spanish mackerel are moderately exploited, oceanic squid are moderately exploited and flying fish are fully exploited.

4.1.6 Southeast Pacific Straddling stocks in the southeast Pacific include jumbo squid (Dosidicus gigas) and (Trachurus picturatus murphyi). Chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) is also found beyond the EEZ but the catches are small. The Chilean jack mackerel is fully or overexploited while the jumbo flying squid is moderately exploited based on FAO (2005a). Chub mackerel is reported as moderately to fully exploited.

4.2 Atlantic Ocean

4.2.1 Northwest Atlantic Straddling stocks in the northwest Atlantic include cod (Gadus morhua), American (Hypoglossoides platessoides), redfish (Sebastes marinus), witch (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), black halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginaeus), grenadiers (Macrouridae ), (Mallotus villosus) and (Pandalus borealis). Based on assessments by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) where stocks are not assessed every year (a convenient summary is found at http://www.nafo.ca/science/advice/nafo-stocks.html), cod, American plaice, redfish, witch flounder, and Atlantic halibut are depleted; black halibut are overexploited; yellowtail flounder and shrimp are fully exploited; capelin are underexploited, and the status of grenadiers is unknown. It is noted that stocks of some of the species on the Flemish Cap (NAFO Division 3M), such as cod and redfish, may be separate from EEZ stocks, and as such, may be other high seas fish stocks, rather than straddling stocks. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 34

4.2.2 Northeast Atlantic The main “traditional” straddling stocks in the northeast Atlantic are: blue whiting (Micromesistisu poutassou), oceanic redfish (Sebastes mentella), cod (Gadus morhua), (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), black halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), Norwegian spring-spawning (Clupea harengus), mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus). In addition to these, the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NEAFC, http://www.neafc.org) advises in its reply to the FAO’s request for input, that most deep water species for which fisheries have recently developed should also be considered as being straddling. These species are: Baird's smoothhead (Alepocehalus bairdii), Risso's smoothhead (Alepocephalus rostratus), blue antimora or blue hake (Antimora rostrata), black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo), (Apristuris spp.), greater silver smelt (Argentina silus), alfonsinos (Beryx spp.), tusk (Brosme brosme), gulper shark ( granulosus), leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus), black dogfish ( fabricii), ( coelolepis), longnose (Centroscymnus crepidater), deep-water red (Chacon (Geyron) affinis), fish (Rattail) (Chimaera monstrosa), (Chlamydoselachus anguineus), (Conger conger), roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris), (Dalatias licha), birdbeak dogfish ( calceus ), black (deep-water) cardinal fish (Epigonus telescopus), greater lanternshark ( princes), velvet belly (Etmopterus spinax), blackmouth dogfish ( melastomus), mouse catshark (Galeus murinus), bluemouth (blue mouth redfish) ( dactylopterus ), blondnose six-gilled shark (Hexanchus griseus), orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus), silver roughy (Pink) (Hoplostethus mediterraneus), large-eyed rabbit fish (ratfish) (Hydrolagus mirabilis), silver scabbard fish (cutless fish) (Lepidopus caudatus), eelpout (Lycodes esmarkii), roughhead grenadier (rough rattail) (Marcrourus berglax), blue ling (Molva dypterigia), ling (Molva molva), common mora (Mora moro), sailfin roughshark (sharpback shark) ( paradoxus), red (blackspot) seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo), forkbeards (Phycis spp.), wreckfish (Polyprion americanus), round skate (Raja fyllae), Arctic skate (Raja hyperborea), Norwegian skate (Raja nidarosiensus), straightnose rabbitfish (Rhinochimaera atlantica), knifetooth dogfish ( ringens), small redfish (Norway haddock) (Sebastes viviparous), Greenland shark ( microcephalus), spiny (deep-sea) scorpionfish (Trachyscorpia cristulata). Fisheries for deep water species have developed rapidly since 1990 in the Northeast Atlantic as a result of management limitations and reduced resource availability of traditional species. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES, 2005) has recently provided advice for the management of these fisheries. Although the state of exploitation of most species/stocks cannot be assessed with respect to standard criteria, the overall evaluation provided by ICES is that those fisheries are currently not sustainable. Based on ICES advice in 2005, none of the traditional straddling stocks are under or moderately exploited, herring and oceanic redfish are fully exploited, blue whiting, cod, haddock, black halibut and mackerel are overexploited, while the state of horse mackerel is uncertain.

4.2.3 Eastern Central Atlantic The analysis of catches by non-coastal States described in the introduction to the chapter on straddling stocks identified catches of common cuttlefish, marine fishes nei, etc. nei, red porgy, West African goatfish, common , cuttlefish, bobtail squids nei, European hake, Natantian decapods nei, croakers, drums nei, tonguefish, chub mackerel, , jack and horse mackerel nei, alfonsinos, nei and Senegalese hake from countries that have fishing agreements with coastal States. It was therefore concluded that there are no significant fisheries for straddling stocks outside of EEZs at present in the Eastern Central Atlantic. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 35

4.2.4 Western Central Atlantic The analysis of catches by non-coastal States was also performed for the Western Central Atlantic. It identified catches of a mixture of coastal and oceanic species in general categories such as: Sharks, rays, skates, etc. nei; croakers, drums nei; hairtails, scabbardfishes nei; marine fishes nei, and Natantian decapods nei, which suggest that these catches were probably made within EEZs under fishing agreements with coastal States. As for the Eastern Central Atlantic, it was concluded that there are no significant fisheries for straddling stocks outside EEZs at present in the Western Central Atlantic.

4.2.5 Southwest Atlantic Straddling stocks in the in the southwest Atlantic include short-fin squid (Illex argentinus), common squid (Loligo spp.), seven star flying squid (Martialia hyadesi), the Argentinian hake ( hubbsi) and southern hake (M. polylepis), the southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis), the pink cusk eel (Genypterus blacodes), the Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides), the tadpole mora (Salilota australis), the Patagonian grenadier (Macruronus magellanicus), the grenadier (Macrourus whitsoni), the Antarctic cod (Notothenia rossii), rockcods (Notothenia spp.) and various species of sharks and rays. Based on FAO (2005a) the state of exploitation of the stocks of short-fin squid and common squid is fully exploited, while the state of the seven star flying squid will be unknown. However, given its life history pattern, relatively wide distribution and low and occasional nature of the catches, it is unlikely that it will be fully or overexploited. The state of Argentian hake (mostly found and caught within the EEZs) are reported as overexploited or depleted, while the southern hake is considered fully exploited. The southern blue whiting is fully to overexploited, and the pink cust eel and the Patagonian toothfish are moderately to fully exploited, although FAO (2005a) notes that “there is a general perception that Patagonian toothfish is in a much critical situation due to high non- reported catches in international waters”. The Patagonian grenadier is moderately exploited while the state of the tadpole mora, rockcods and the shark and rays are not known.

4.2.6 Southeast Atlantic In reply to FAO’s request to RFB’s, the Southeast Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO, http://www.seafo.org/) identified the following species as straddling: alfonsinos (Family Bercycidae), orange roughy, horse mackerel (Trachurus spp.), (Family Mytophidae), mackerel (Scomber spp.), skates (Family Rajidae), sharks (Order Selachomorpha), armourhead (Pseudopentaceros spp.), cardinal fish (Epigonus spp.), deep sea red crab (Chaceon maritae), (Family Octopodidae), squids (Family Loliginidae), and wreckfish (Polyprion americanus). The state of exploitation is unknown for all of the species except for horse mackerel which are classified as fully exploited.

4.3 Indian Ocean No fisheries on straddling stocks have been identified in the Indian ocean. There are straddling resources (e.g. deep water snapper), but they are not fished to any significant extent on the high seas. As noted above, there are also areas in the Indian Ocean that are suitable for straddling stocks in terms of topography with relatively shallow water extending from an EEZ into the high seas. However, fishing on straddling stocks does not seem significant at present in those areas.

4.4 Southern Ocean The Southern Ocean is considered to be delimited by the Antarctic Convergence where cold Antarctic waters meet warmer waters of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans to the north. The location of the Antarctic Convergence varies over time, but it is in the vicinity of 60°S. The Antarctic convergence is generally considered to form the boundary of the Southern Ocean ecosystem, with relatively few species passing through it (the great whales are a notable exception). There is a unique legal situation for the Southern Ocean (FAO statistical areas 48, 58 and 88) which is within the jurisdiction of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 36

Resources (CCAMLR, http://www.ccamlr.org/default.htm). Claims of sovereignty over the Antarctic Continent or its continental shelf have been put aside under provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, which entered into force in 1961 (http://www-old.aad.gov.au/information/treaty/treaty.asp). However, several countries have established EEZs within the Southern Ocean area of CCAMLR off the coasts of their island territories in that area, in addition to the EEZs extending from the tip of South America. Given the unique situation of the Southern Ocean with respect to territorial and jurisdictional claims, this review reports on all of the species fished in the CCAMLR convention area as if they were straddling fish stocks or other high seas fish stocks. There are no fisheries for highly migratory species (as defined by Annex 1 of UNCLOS) in the Southern Ocean at present. Cetaceans or whales are listed as highly migratory species in Annex 1 of UNCLOS and, historically, the Southern Ocean was a major area for whaling. However, the International Whaling Commission currently maintains a moratorium on commercial whaling.

FIGURE 46 Prior to the mid 1960s, only whale Catches by species in the Southern Ocean catches were reported to FAO from as reported to FAO in percentage cumulative, 1990–2004 the Southern Ocean. Since then, the fisheries have targeted various Southern Ocean cumulative 1990-2004 species including marbled rockcod, mackerel icefish, humped rockcod, south Georgian icefish, Patagonian and Antarctic toothfish and Antarctic . Reported catches exceeded 600 000 tonnes in the early 1980s, but since the early 1990s, they have been relatively stable around 100 000 tonnes per year, albeit with a tendency to increase. During 1990–2004 Antarctic krill Patagonian toothfish (Figures 46 and 47), the catches Electron subantarctic M ackerel icefish have been dominated by Antarctic Antarctic toothfish (negligible) Grey rockcod krill (86 percent), Patagonian Spiny icefish (negligible) Others (55 species) toothfish (6 percent), a lanternfish (Electrona carlsbergi), the FIGURE 47 subantarctic electron (5 percent) Catches reported to FAO from the Southern Ocean and the mackerel icefish at less than Southern Ocean 2 percent. More than fifty species 700 Others (55 species) are reported in the remaining 1 Spiny icefish (negligible) 600 percent of the total catches. Grey rockcod Although Antarctic toothfish does Antarctic toothfish (negligible) 500 not show up as an important species M ackerel icefish in the catch statistics, it is a concern Electron subantarctic 400 Patagonian toothfish within the convention area of Antarctic krill CCAMLR because of IUU (Illegal, 300 Unreported or Unregulated) fishing during the late 1990s and early 200 2000s. Catch (thousand tonnes) Information on the state of 10 0 exploitation of Southern Ocean resources was provided by the 0 CCAMLR Secretariat. Antarctic 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 krill (Euphausia superba) is considered underexploited in FAO Area 48 and 58, while the lanternfish subantartic electron (Electrona carlsbergi), the sevenstar flying squid (Martialia hyadesi), and the red stone crab (Paralomis spinosissima) and the globose king crab (P. formosa) in FAO Area 48 are also considered underexploited. Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) is considered overfished in parts of The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 37

FAO Area 58 and fully exploited in Area 48 and other parts of Area 58. Mackerel icefish (Champsocephalus gunnari) is fully exploited in both Areas 48 and 58 while the state of marbled rockcod (Notothenia rossii), on which the fishery is closed, is uncertain. No species are considered moderately exploited in the Southern Ocean.

4.5 Mediterranean Sea No EEZs have been implemented in the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, all fish stocks exploited within and beyond the 12 nautical miles of territorial sea will correspond to the definition of a straddling stock. The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) uses the concept of shared stocks to identify those exploited by two or more countries on the high seas and only by the riparian countries in territorial waters. Such stocks in the Mediterranean include hake () in the gulf of Lions, deep sea , the blue and red shrimp (Aristeus antennatus) and the giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea), (Sardina pilchardus) in the Sea of Alboran and Adriatic sea and (Engraulis encrasicolus) in the gulf of Lions and the Adriatic sea. Based on FAO (2005a), the state of exploitation of giant red shrimp is not known, the rose shrimp is fully exploited and the hake is overexploited. The state of sardines and ranges from underexploited to overexploited depending on the zone. It should be noted that fishing with towed gears beyond 1 000 m depth is forbidden by GFCM. The riparian States of the Black Sea have implemented EEZs till the median line, hence there are no international waters in the Black Sea and, by definition, no straddling stocks.

4.6 State of the stocks The state of exploitation of the main species-area combinations that include straddling fish stock is summarized in Table 4. Overall, 3 percent of the straddling stocks are underexploited, 9 percent are moderately exploited, 15 percent are fully exploited, 46 percent are overexploited, 7 percent are depleted, 1 percent are recovering and the status of exploitation is not known for 20 percent of the species/stock categories used. Based on ICES (2005) advice to NEAFC that fisheries for deep water species (which NEAFC categorized as straddling stocks), were not sustainable, they have been classified herein as overfished. This may overstate the percentage of stocks that are overexploited, because some stocks might not yet be overexploited and management interventions may prevent them from becoming overexploited. Alternatively, their state might have been classified as unknown, given ICES’ reservations about data quality and its ability to assess the state of exploitation, and but in light of ICES’ concerns about sustainability, it seems prudent to classify these stocks as overexploited, unless demonstrated otherwise.

The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 38

TABLE 4 Summary of the state of exploitation of the main species-area combinations that contain straddling fish stocks Major Catches (tonnes) State of Species/stock Ocean area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 exploitation Sharks SE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Selachimorpha) Frilled shark NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Chlamydoselachus anguineus) Bluntnose sixgill shark NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Hexanchus griseus) Blackmouth Dogfish NE Atlantic 45 34 280 218 158 N (Galeus melastomus) Mouse catshark NE Atlantic 45 34 280 218 158 N (Galeus murinus) Deep-water NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N ( spp.) Greenland shark NE Atlantic 45 58 56 61 66 N (Somniosus microcephalus) Gulper shark NE Atlantic 141 248 401 919 672 N (Centrophorus granulosus) Leafscale gulper shark NE Atlantic 1 937 1 895 3 042 2 947 2 556 D (Centrophorus squamosus) Velvet belly NE Atlantic 5 10 N (Etmopterus spinax) Great lanternshark NE Atlantic 5 10 N (Etmopterus princeps) Birdbeak dogfish NE Atlantic 18 51 102 140 323 N (Deania calceus) Portuguese dogfish NE Atlantic 1 861 3 225 3 687 4 232 4 021 D (Centroscymnus coelolepis) NE Atlantic 1 3 16 509 301 N (Centroscymnus crepidater) Knifetooth dogfish NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Scymnodon ringens) Kitefin shark NE Atlantic 311 189 40 735 603 F (Dalatias licha) Dogfish, black NE Atlantic 271 271 27 53 56 N (Centroscyllium fabricii) Sailfin roughshark NE Atlantic 1 1 N (Oxynotus paradoxus) Round ray NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Raja fyllae) Arctic skate NE Atlantic 5 N (Raja hyperborea) Norwegian skate NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Raja nidarosiensus) Rays and skates nei NW Atlantic 33 998 30 818 27 270 31 162 27 982 F-O-D (Family Rajidae) Rays and skates nei SE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Family Rajidae) Rabbit fish [Rattail] NE Atlantic 15 122 69 169 617 N (Chimaera monstrosa) Large-eyed rabbitfish [Ratfish] NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Hydrolagus mirabilis) Straightnose rabbitfish NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Rhinochimaera atlantica) Atlantic Herring, NE Atlantic 2 103 709 1 645 085 1 614 754 1 661 405 1 755 260 F Norwegian spring spawning Atlanto- (Clupea harengus) candian) Greater argentine NE Atlantic 28 533 48 731 37 033 21 395 32 865 N (Argentina silus) Baird's slickhead NE Atlantic 12 616 259 9 663 7 492 N (Alepocehalus bairdii) The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 39

Major Catches (tonnes) State of Species/stock Ocean area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 exploitation Risso's smooth-head NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Alepocephalus rostratus) Lanternfish SE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Family Myctophidae) Lanternfish W Indian 1 N (Family Myctophidae) Ocean Greater eelpout NE Atlantic 28 37 43 30 49 N (Lycodes esmarkii) European conger NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Conger conger) Japanese flyingfish NW Pacific N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Cypselurus agoo) Flying fishes nei All oceans 104 668 62 858 60 255 63 252 61 679 N (Exocoetidae) Common mora NE Atlantic 130 351 109 226 6 N (Mora moro) Blue hake NE Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 N (Antimora rostrata) Tadpole codling SE Atlantic 15 555 8 151 4 648 7 595 6 299 N (Salilota australis) Tusk NE Atlantic 31 246 27 019 25 815 20 760 19 039 N (Brosme brosme) NE Atlantic 877 150 884 785 847 874 807 870 859 919 O (Gadus morhua) Atlantic cod NW Atlantic 63 201 60 074 55 337 41 132 39 649 D (Gadus morhua) Ling NE Atlantic 43 320 37 341 41 552 40 410 35 380 N (Molva molva) Blue ling NE Atlantic 16 146 18 669 12 538 11 173 7 785 N (Molva dypterigia) Forkbeards NE Atlantic 496 475 463 1 081 855 N (Phycis spp.) Haddock NE Atlantic 196 111 208 290 247 470 258 707 299 953 N (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) Alaska pollock [walleye] NE Pacific 1 183 482 1 443 917 1 519 122 1 530 299 1 522 860 N (Theragra chalcogramma) Alaska pollock [walleye] NW Pacific 1 754 748 1 700 548 1 135 732 1 357 663 1 169 079 N (Theragra chalcogramma) Blue whiting NE Atlantic 1 445 788 1 793 954 1 557 688 2 373 128 2 418 198 O (Micromesistius poutassou) Blue whiting Mediterranean 26 317 27 933 14 906 11 909 9 664 N (Micromesistius poutassou) Southern blue whiting Southern 152 473 150 764 156 251 130 031 152 041 N (Micromesistius australis) Ocean European hake Mediterranean 68 897 52 408 53 950 55 037 62 951 N (Merluccius merluccius) SW Atlantic 246 744 306 771 412 068 380 283 480 588 N (Merluccius hubbsi) Patagonian hake SW Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Merluccius patagonicus) Patagonian grenadier SW Atlantic 142 676 136 366 126 436 122 844 145 224 N (Macruronus magellanicus) Roughhead grenadier NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Macrourus berglax) Roughhead grenadier NW Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A M (Macrourus berglax) Grenadiers SW Atlantic 10 503 3 209 6 052 8 253 5 265 N (Macrourus spp.) Roundnose grenadier NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Coryphaenoides rupestris) Alfonsinos NE Atlantic 139 130 272 949 1 117 N (Beryx spp.) Alfonsinos SE Atlantic 302 318 236 229 324 N (Beryx spp.) The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 40

Major Catches (tonnes) State of Species/stock Ocean area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 exploitation Roughy, silver [Pink] NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Hoplostethus mediterraneus) Orange roughy NE Atlantic 1 467 4 672 5 438 872 1 240 N (Hoplostethus atlanticus) Orange roughy SE Atlantic 1 542 857 2 169 2 109 1 845 N (Hoplostethus atlanticus) Orange roughy SW Pacific 18 007 14 303 18 515 18 346 18 157 N (Hoplostethus atlanticus) Oreodories SE Atlantic 10 54 335 331 497 N (Family ) Oreodories SW Pacific 22 775 24 165 17 635 15 263 19 787 N (Family Oreosomatidae) Wreckfish NE Atlantic 441 414 432 521 358 N (Polyprion americanus) Wreckfish SE Atlantic 8 2 6 1 N (Polyprion americanus) Mediterranean 8 189 11 532 7 932 12 572 10 107 N (Trachurus trachurus) SW Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 N (Trachurus picturatus) Chilean jack mackerel SE Pacific 1 540 494 2 508 834 1 750 078 1 736 048 1 778 777 N (Trachurus murphyi) Mediterranean horse mackerel Mediterranean N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Trachurus mediterraneus) Jack and horse mackerels nei SE Atlantic 1 941 234 F (Trachurus spp.) Jack and horse mackerels nei Mediterranean 31 658 31 861 27 146 26 915 29 810 N (Trachurus spp.) Jack and horse mackerels nei NW Pacific N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Trachurus spp.) Blackspot (=red) seabream NE Atlantic 3 428 3 144 3 711 3 531 3 981 N (Pagellus bogaraveo) Armourhead SE Atlantic 0 0 0 0 0 N (Pseudopentaceros spp.) Antarctic toothfish Southern 751 626 1 354 2 029 2 584 N (Dissostichus mawsoni) Ocean Patagonian toothfish SW Atlantic 11 128 13 823 12 488 8 871 6 671 N (Dissostichus eleginoides) Patagonian toothfish Southern 16 911 13 179 13 989 16 479 11 182 F-O (Dissostichus eleginoides) Ocean Antarctic rockcods, noties nei SW Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Nototheniidae) Black cardinal fish NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Epigonus telescopus) Cardinal fishes nei. SE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Epigonus spp.) Atlantic Atlantic 28 958 30 927 26 549 19 439 19 435 N (Sarda sp.) Eastern Pacific bonito E Pacific 972 1 471 1 158 2 325 1 904 N (Sarda chiliensis) NE Atlantic 654 829 660 188 684 829 601 685 587 072 O (Scomber scombrus) Atlantic mackerel Mediterranean 7 434 6 375 6 048 9 975 13 138 N (Scomber scombrus) Mackerel, SE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Scomber spp.) Plain bonito Atlantic 1 199 1 053 1 046 739 588 N (Orcynopsis unicolor) Wahoo EC Atlantic 571 668 650 113 442 N (Acanthocybium solandri) Wahoo WC Atlantic 1 051 1 373 1 122 1 446 1 643 N (Acanthocybium solandri) Wahoo Indian Ocean 650 591 661 625 595 N (Acanthocybium solandri) The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 41

Major Catches (tonnes) State of Species/stock Ocean area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 exploitation Wahoo WC Pacific 180 203 140 71 120 N (Acanthocybium solandri) Narrow-barred Spanish Indian Ocean 103 523 98 645 98 894 101 841 103 905 N mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson) Narrow-barred Spanish Pacific 73 085 75 235 84 858 93 318 92 578 N mackerel Ocean (Scomberomorus commerson) Indo-Pacific All oceans 45 619 46 502 45 969 45 913 48 411 N (Scomberomorus guttatus) Streaked seerfish Indian Ocean N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Scomberomorus lineolatus) King mackerel WC Atlantic 8 966 10 086 12 292 12 316 12 566 N (Scomberomorus cavalla) King mackerel SW Atlantic 2 344 1 251 2 316 3 311 247 N (Scomberomorus cavalla) Atlantic Spanish mackerel WC Atlantic 6 999 6 873 7 361 9 189 9 403 N (Scomberomorus maculatus) Atlantic Spanish mackerel SW Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Scomberomorus maculatus) WC Atlantic 190 147 N (Scomberomorus regalis) Pacific 9 120 7 547 6 607 11 329 5 914 N (Scomberomorus sierra) West African Spanish mackerel EC Atlantic 4 13 11 31 45 N (Scomberomorus tritor) Japanese Spanish mackerel WC Pacific 539 094 522 756 553 652 439 412 427 990 N (Scomberomorus niphonius) Seerfishes nei WC Atlantic 756 770 899 1 551 390 N (Scomberomorus spp.) Seerfishes nei Indian Ocean 12 008 11 927 11 364 11 609 10 690 N (Scomberomorus spp.) Seerfishes nei Pacific 25 242 25 541 25 846 31 931 29 399 N (Scomberomorus spp.) Longtail tuna Indian 74 889 65 463 62 962 64 604 49 492 N (Thunnus tonggol) Longtail tuna Pacific 67 841 74 167 63 374 100 857 93 837 N (Thunnus tonggol) Silver scabbardfish [Cutlass NE Atlantic 104 361 1 970 1 000 806 N fish] (Lepidopus caudatus) Black scabbardfish NE Atlantic 8 184 10 821 11 377 8 215 8 092 N (Aphanopus carbo) Atlantic redfish NW Atlantic 47 160 49 629 56 566 64 643 31 905 F-O (Sebastes spp.) Beaked redfish North 72 506 47 805 49 834 55 932 32 459 F (Sebastes mentella) Atlantic Norway redfish NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Sebastes viviparus) Blackbelly rosefish NE Atlantic 743 624 453 488 504 N (Helicolenus dactylopterus) Scorpionfish, Spiny [Deep-sea] NE Atlantic 41 42 N (Trachyscorpia cristulata) Atlantic halibut NW Atlantic 1 372 2 367 1 893 2 244 2 056 D (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) Greenland halibut NE Atlantic 43 108 47 190 43 393 48 050 53 013 O (Rheinhardtius hippoglossoides) Greenland halibut NW Atlantic 64 583 61 431 64 482 71 859 56 893 O (Rheinhardtius hippoglossoides) Which flounder NW Atlantic 6 447 7 277 7 077 7 114 6 178 D (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) American plaice NW Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A D (Hippoglossoides platessoides) The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 42

Major Catches (tonnes) State of Species/stock Ocean area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 exploitation Yellow flounder NW Atlantic 20 971 24 273 18 948 21 447 20 803 F (Limanda ferruginea) Northern NW Atlantic 232 028 230 757 253 691 282 692 354 907 F (Pandalus borealis) West African geryon SE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Chaceon maritae) Deep-sea red crab NE Atlantic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Chaceon (Geryon) affinis) Squids SE Atlantic 7 111 4 494 9 439 10 422 11 807 N (Family Loliginidae) Northern shortfin squid WC Atlantic 1 N (Illex illecebrosus) Argentine shortfin squid SW Atlantic 940 054 750 203 540 357 503 624 129 279 N (Illex argentinus) Jumbo flying squid EC Pacific 103 307 153 308 284 090 281 699 688 889 N (Dosidicus gigas) European flying squid Mediterranean N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N (Todarodes sagittatus sagittatus) Japanese flying squid NW Pacific 570 427 528 523 504 438 487 576 447 363 N (Todarodes pacificus) Sevenstar flying squid SW Atlantic 653 115 37 59 N (Martialia hyadesi) Octopus SE Atlantic 305 129 291 209 144 N (Family Octopodidae)

5. OTHER HIGH SEAS FISH STOCKS This section consider the fish stocks that are not comprised of highly migratory species and occur exclusively in the high seas, i.e. in waters beyond the areas of national jurisdiction, as referred to in section 2.1. Most of the currently known other high seas stocks are comprised of deep water species, but several others may exist for pelagic species. Most of the information from this section has been adapted from relevant chapters in FAO (2005a), and advice and information from the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and other Regional Fisheries Organizations. Most fisheries for these deep water species are relatively recent and the development of a majority of them has outpaced the ability to provide scientific information and to implement effective management. There is no rigorous definition of a deep water fishery, but in general, they occur in depths of at least 500 m, and they are commonly thought of as occurring at depths of 1000 m or more. Current technology allows fishing to depths of somewhat deeper than about 2 000 m. Also, relatively little is known about many of the species and most of the fisheries. Deep water species live at depths where there is virtually no light or primary productivity. Most nutrients and production is retained in surface waters above the permanent thermocline. Although many species migrate vertically to feed at night, those that do not, depend (directly or indirectly) on a rain of dead plants and animals from surface waters for food. Some species only inhabit deep waters in their adult stage, and may be exploited during both their shallow and deep water phases, complicating the interpretation of whether such catches should be defined as deepwater or not. Deep water species have diverse life history strategies, although little is known about their stock structure, migrations, and general biology and ecology. Since they live in low productivity environments, they are expected to be slow growing and mature late in life, which has been confirmed for some important species (e.g. orange roughy which do not mature until age 20 or older, and can live to more than 100 years old). In general, deep water species are believed to be particularly vulnerable to over-exploitation and depletion (at least localized) because of their slow growth and late maturity. Some species form dense aggregations which are accessible to fisheries which have developed the capability to fish in deep water over the last few decades. Deep water fisheries often exploit aggregations associated with topographic features like seamounts, ocean ridges and canyons. However, fisheries associated with The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 43 particular topographic features usually do not persist, presumably because of localized depletion of the fishery resource. While most fish families of deep water species occur world-wide, the existence of deep water basins bounded by the continents and oceanic ridges has resulted in regional differences. Another important feature of deep water fishes is that new discoveries continue, e.g. the relatively recent discovery of a 4.5 m 750 kg (Megachasma pelagios) in Hawaii in 1976 (Taylor, Compagno and Struhsaker, 1983) and a six-gilled stingray (Hexatrygon bickelli) discovered in Port Elisabeth (Heemstra and Smith, 1980), both representing new taxonomic families. Some of the species that are now fished in deep water were taken at shallower depths in the past, but fishing has extended into deeper waters as deep water fishing technology has improved and stocks have been fished down at shallower depths. Important species that form deep water aggregations include orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) and the oreos (Allocyttus spp., Neocyttus spp. Pseudocyttus spp., etc), which are often fished together, alfonsinos (Beryx spp.), Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) in Southern Ocean fisheries, pelagic armourhead (Pseudopentaceros wheeleri) and various species of Scorpaenidae found on both coasts of North America. Major fisheries for deep water species (particularly orange roughy) first developed off New Zealand and Australia in the late 1970s and 1980s, and they have developed rapidly elsewhere since 1990. The development of deep water fisheries has been prompted by three related factors: (1) depletion of species and stocks in shallower water (and associated regulations that restrict fishing in shallower water), (2) the high value of some deep water species, and (3) advances in technology that make fishing in deep water possible and commercially viable. On the high seas, management of deep water fisheries has lagged the development of the fisheries, even where there are Regional Fishery Bodies with a purview over the species. As noted above, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES, 2005) has recently (October 2005) provided advice for the management of deep water fisheries under purview of the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The ICES evaluation is probably broadly applicable; therefore it is reproduced below (adapted for a more general context): “Most exploited deepwater species are considered to be harvested unsustainably; however, it is currently not possible to provide advice for specific fisheries for deep-sea species. Consistent with a precautionary approach, […] immediate reduction in established deep-sea fisheries [should occur] unless they can be shown to be sustainable. Measures should also be implemented to reduce exploitation of deep-sea species by fisheries primarily targeting shelf species (hake, anglerfish, and megrim). New deep-sea fisheries or expansion of existing fisheries into new fishing areas should not be permitted unless the expansion is very cautious, and is accompanied by programmes to collect data which allow evaluation of stock status as the basis for determining sustainable exploitation levels. […] For several species there is a concern that catch rates can only be maintained by sequential depletion of relatively isolated concentrations/sub-units of a stock. The smallest unit for which data are reported at present […] may not be appropriate for monitoring or managing this type of fishing activity. The depth range within an area may be very wide, and the sizes of the areas are very different.”

5.1 Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) The Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) FIGURE 48 (Figure 48), a member of the Trachichthyidae Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) family, is found in the North and South Atlantic, in the Southern Indian Ocean, the Tasman Sea, around New Zealand, and in the South Pacific. They are found within EEZs, some are straddling stocks, while others are entirely on the high seas. The species is mainly caught at depths over 800 m by fisheries on fish aggregations associated with seamounts. The The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 44 proportion of the resource outside of the fished area is not known. Fisheries appear to have serially depleted fish aggregations that may or not correspond to distinct stock units. Recruitment appears to be irregular and the time lag between spawning and recruitment to the spawning aggregations that are the targets of most fisheries is so long (about 20 years), that even in the presence of long time series of data it will be very difficult to assess the influence of fisheries on recruitment. The theory upon which the concept of a sustainable yield is FIGURE 49 based implies that there should be a Catches of orange roughy as reported to FAO compensatory response in recruitment as a result of fishing, but 10 0 Orange roughy - Hoplostethus atlanticus there is no evidence so far that this is 90 the case for orange roughy. Pacific Ocean Sustainable exploitation rates are 80 Indian Ocean thus bound to be very low, and may 70 Atlantic Ocean be in the order of 5 percent of 60 biomass. The orange roughy fishery 50 developed mostly in the Pacific 40

Ocean (Figure 49) with smaller 30

catches in the Atlantic and Indian Catch (thousand tonnes) oceans. Catches peaked in the early 20 1990s at 90 000 tonnes, but they 10 have declined since in all oceans to 0 less than 26 000 tonnes in 2004. 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

5.2 Oreo dories (Allocyttus spp. Neocyttus spp. and Pseudocyttus spp.) The oreo dories (Allocyttus spp., Neocyttus spp. and Pseudocyttus spp.), members of the Oreostomadidae) occur close to the sea bed in deepwaters. They form large aggregations over rough grounds near seamounts and canyons in the Antarctic, Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans and world catches are reported primarily off South Africa, New Zealand and southern Australia. As for orange roughy, the proportion of the resource outside of the fished area is not known and fisheries appear to have serially depleted fish aggregations that may or may not correspond to distinct stock units. Recruitment appears at best irregular, and like orange roughy, there is no evidence of a compensatory response in recruitment. Estimates from New Zealand indicates MSY (Maximum Sustainable Yield) to be of the order of 1.6 percent of FIGURE 50 initial biomass if the population is not Catches of oreo dories as reported to FAO to be reduced by more than 80 percent with a 20 percent probability (FAO, Ore o dories 2005a). Some Oreo dories fisheries 50 Al l ocyttus spp. have been managed on the basis of 45 Neocyttus spp. management units combining species, Pseudocyttus spp. 40 which means that species are not Pacific Ocean 35 individually protected. Indian Ocean (negligible) Catches of oreo dories are 30 Atlantic Ocean (negligible) overwhelmingly from the Pacific 25 Ocean with comparatively minuscule catches reported from the Atlantic and 20 Indian oceans in recent years 15

(Figure 50). Catches have been Catch (thousand tonnes) 10 relatively stable around 20 000 tonnes 5 since the mid 1980s, but after declining to around 15 000 tonnes in 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2003 they increased again to 20 000 tonnes in 2004. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 45

5.3 Alfonsino (Beryx splendens) The alfonsino (Beryx splendens), belong to the Bericidae family and are found in the Atlantic, Indian, western and central Pacific Oceans though they are generally not present in the northeast Pacific. They inhabit the outer shelf (180 m) and slope to at least 1 300 m depth, and they may make vertical migrations at night. Beryx splendens are caught in mid-water trawls over shallower seamounts, underwater ridges and on the slope edges between 300 and 500 m. Genetic studies suggests that alfonsinos may have an ocean-wide population structure, but the relationship between the various fish aggregations is not known. If the hypothesis of an ocean-wide population structure proves true, it could be that individual aggregations cannot be exploited sustainably if most recruitment originates irregularly from one or a few areas (which can differ from year to year). Furthermore, if fishing depletes an aggregation that was destined to supply recruits over a large geographic area, the adverse affect on the broader population may be much greater than a localized depletion. Some aggregations may occur in areas that are rarely suitable for recruits to settle; thus fishing on these aggregations will not be sustainable. Thus, it is important to better understand stock structure and geographic pattern of successful spawning and settlement of recruits. Indeed, such information is generally needed for deepwater species that are fished in seemingly isolated aggregations. FIGURE 51 However, unlike many deepwater Catches of alfonsinos as reported to FAO species, alfonsinos growth and 16 mortality rates are relatively high (natural mortality is estimated to be 14 Alfonsinos - Ber yx sp l end en s around 0.23), which means that the 12 Pacific Ocean species should be better able to Indian Ocean sustain a fishery than other less 10 Atlantic Ocean productive deepwater species. Catches of alfonsinos have 8 occurred in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans since the late 1970s. 6 Catches in the Pacific Ocean have

Catch (thousand tonnes) 4 increased steeply from 1999 to 2003.

Overall, catches remained less than 2 4 000 tonnes until 1995, but have increased to 15 000 tonnes in 2003 0 before declining to 7 000 tonnes in 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2004 (Figure 51).

5.4 Toothfishes (Dissostichus spp.)

Toothfishes (Dissostichus spp.), belong to the FIGURE 52 Notothenidae family and have a circumpolar The Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) distribution within Antarctic and Southern Ocean waters. Patagonian toothfish (D. eleginoides) (Figure 52) are found asymmetrically around southern South America and Antarctic toothfish (D. mawsoni) occurs in high latitudes, in the Pacific region. The two species overlap between 60°S and 65°S and both occur to depths of 3 000 m. The northern limit for most populations of Patagonian toothfish is 45°S, except along the Chilean and Argentinean coasts where they may extend north in deeper cold water. Significant populations of Patagonian toothfish exist in the waters of, and adjacent to, the various sub-Antarctic islands and in the waters of Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Peru. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 46

The problem of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing (IUU), while considerably reduced during the 2003–2004 season (6 342 tonnes estimated to have been caught in FAO Statistical Area 41 – Southwest Atlantic – and 3 701 tonnes in Area 87 – Southeast Pacific), remains a major concern. Further, catches of toothfish reported as taken in the Indian Ocean in particular, i.e. outside of the CCAMLR management area, are believed to have been harvested FIGURE 53 Catches of toothfish (Antarctic and Patagonian) from stocks within the management as reported to FAO area. Past declines in toothfish stocks targeted by IUU fishing fleets 50 have been fast and significant. For 45 example, resources of toothfish in Toothfishes - Dossi sti chus spp. Prince Edward Islands (South 40 Southern Ocean Africa) have been reduced to only a 35 Pacific Ocean few percent of the pre-exploitation 30 biomass. Indian Ocean Catches of toothfishes increased 25 Atlantic Ocean steeply from less than 2 000 tonnes 20 in 1983 to 40 000 tonnes in 1992, and catches have been fluctuating 15 Catch (thousand tonnes) around that value since (Figure 53), 10 but declining to 27 000 tonnes in 5 2004. Toothfishes are caught in the Atlantic, Indian, Pacific and 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Southern oceans, with the Atlantic and Southern oceans making the largest contributions.

5.5 Pelagic armourhead (Pseudopentaceros wheeleri and P. richardsoni) Pelagic armourhead (Pseudopentaceros wheeleri and P. richardsoni), belong to the Pentacerotidae family. The species is associated with seamounts, especially in the North Pacific, but the family is distributed throughout the Indian and Pacific Oceans and in the southwestern Atlantic. The fishery for pelagic armourhead illustrates the potential evolution of fisheries. Japanese and Russian vessels began in the Emperor Seamount chain and the Northern Hawaiian Ridge areas in 1969. The total catch for the Russian vessels is not known but is estimated at over 133 400 tonnes in the period 1967–1977. Between 1969 and 1977, the Japanese fleet sent two to five trawlers a year to this area and averaged catches of 22 800–35 100 tonnes a year. Between 1977 and 1982 catches fell to 5 800 – 9 900 tonnes. Ninety percent of the catch was pelagic armourhead. The once dominant pelagic armourhead have later been replaced by alfonsino (Beryx splendens), although the alfonsino has never been as abundant as the pelagic armourhead was. There is no evidence that either of the fish stocks will recover enough to allow commercially viable fisheries in the near future. Past catches of pelagic armourhead do not appear to have been reported to FAO as the maximum reported is 435 tonnes in 1993.

5.6 Hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae) Hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae) is a benthopelagic , that usually lives near the bottom in the southwest Pacific ocean, but the species also form mid-water aggregations for spawning. Large adult fish generally occur deeper than 400 m, while juveniles may be found in shallower water. Midwater trawl fisheries target aggregations near canyons that are often close to the coast in areas of narrow continental shelves. While fisheries for hoki are generally considered deep water fisheries, most of the catch is from EEZs. The significance of hoki as an “other high seas fish stock” is probably minor.

The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 47

The stock structure is uncertain FIGURE 54 and it is not always clear that TACs Catches of hoki as reported to FAO set for specific geographic areas correspond to distinct biological 350 units. Management experience in at 300 least some jurisdictions indicates Hok i - M acruronus novaezelandiae that fisheries exploiting hoki can be sustainably managed. 250 Pacific Ocean The hoki fishery occurs almost Indian Ocean entirely in the Pacific Ocean with 200 small catches reported from the Indian Ocean (Figure 54). Catches 15 0 have increased steeply from around 10 0

50 000 tonnes in 1985 to 230 000 Catch (thousand tonnes) tonnes in 1988. Catches have been fluctuating in excess 200 000 50 tonnes since, except in 2004 when 0 they declined to 160 000 tonnes. 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 5.7 Other species In addition to the species described above, a number of deep water species have been treated under section 4.2.2 on straddling stocks in the North East Atlantic. Some of them potentially make up other high seas fish stocks. A further suite of deep water, or at least slope species, have been the target of fisheries in many tropical regions. These can be targeted by small-scale deepwater fisheries usually along the shelf break and shelf slope wherever the continental shelf is relatively narrow and the fishing grounds are accessible to fishermen using small fishing boats. The principle species consist of members of the Lutjanidae (snappers), Serranidae (sea basses; and fairy basslets), and Carangidae (jacks and pompanos) families and mostly importantly include the eteline snappers (e.g. Etelis coruscans and E. carbunculus) and the jobfishes (e.g. Pristomopoides filamemtosus, P. typus and P. multidens). These fisheries are particularly important to small island States that often have few other resources though they are also widely found along the continental margins in tropical and sub- tropical areas. However, they are probably not significant as other high seas fish stocks.

5.8 State of the stocks Knowledge of the biology, life cycle, population dynamics, and stock structure of other high seas stocks remains limited. However, based on available information on slow growth rates, sporadic recruitment, and the rapid depletion of fish aggregations, orange roughy and oreo dories should be regarded as overexploited or depleted in all areas where fishing has developed. Alfonsinos may be able to sustain slightly higher exploitation rates but lack of knowledge on other parameters and biological characteristics calls for caution and exploited stocks should be considered fully if not over- exploited. The toothfishes and hoki are fully exploited or overexploited. 6. ASSOCIATED SPECIES As mentioned earlier, associated species are those impacted species that are not part of the landed catch. Fisheries for straddling fish stocks, highly migratory fish stocks, and other high seas fish stocks, impact other species as a result of (1) discards, (2) physical contact of fishing gear with organisms (and habitat) that are not caught, and (3) indirect processes. Discards are considered in section 6.1 while physical contact and indirect processes are considered together in 6.2.

6.1 Discards Much more is known about discards than the other mechanisms through which fisheries impact associated species, although information is still limited. The most recent global information on The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 48 discards is in an FAO report by Kelleher (2005). It estimates that the rate of discards is about 8 percent for all marine fisheries combined (EEZ and high seas), with large differences by countries, gear types, target species and statistical areas. Shrimp trawling has the highest estimated average discard rate (62.3 percent), but the rates vary widely between fisheries (from 0 to 96 percent). Most shrimp trawling is on stocks confined to the EEZ, although there are some straddling or other high seas stocks of shrimp that are fished. These are likely to be fisheries in relatively deepwater for coldwater species, such as the fishery for Pandalus shrimp on the Flemish Cap off Newfoundland and off Labrador in the Northwest Atlantic (FAO Statistical Area 21). The aggregate discard rate for cold/deepwater shrimp fisheries is 39 percent, but where use of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) is mandated (e.g. as in the Labrador and Flemish Cap fishery), the discard rate is relatively low, on the order of 5 percent. There are a variety of finfish and invertebrate species caught, including juveniles of target species of many fisheries. Concern about the impact of shrimp trawling discards on finfish fisheries (particularly for ) motivated mandatory use of BRDs in some fisheries. Following shrimp trawling, longline fishing for highly migratory species (primarily tuna and tuna like species) has the highest discard rate (averaging 28 percent with a range of 0 to 40 percent). Other fisheries for highly migratory species have much lower discard rates: 5 percent for tuna purse seines, 0.4 percent for tuna pole and line fishing. The total discards by these highly migratory species fisheries is estimated as about 700 000 tonnes annually. The portion discarded by high seas fisheries is unknown, but it is likely to be substantial. The most common discard species from longlines is the blue shark. Other sharks, target species damaged by sharks and marine mammals, frigate tuna, kawakawa, Indo-Pacific king mackerel, and narrow-barred Spanish mackerel are also taken and discarded. Longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol), slender tuna (Allothunnus fallai), the butterfly kingfish (Gasterochisma melampus), the wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) and Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus spp.) are here considered associated species as well as the flying fish (Exocoetidae, genera Exocoetus, Cypselurus, Hirundichthys, Cheilopogon and Prognichthys) the sunfish or headfish of the family Molidae, the mackerel (Gempylus serpens), escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) and oilfish (Ruvettus pretiosus) of the family, are species which are caught close inshore but migrate far offshore. They are all part of the regular by-catch of the tuna longliners together with the lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox and A. brevirostris). Albatross, petrels and other seabirds are also caught by longlines. For tuna purse seines, some of the discarded species are bonito, dogtooth tuna, rainbow runner, dolphinfish, jacks, sharks, billfish, mantas and undersize target species (i.e. skipjack and yellowfin tuna). Dolphin are also encircled by purse seines in some areas (see discussion below). As noted above, discards from pole and line fishing are minor. Fisheries for straddling fish stocks and other high seas fish stocks are primarily conducted with bottom trawls. The estimated discard rate for trawlers targeting demersal finfish is 9.6 percent (for all fisheries). There is no basis to judge if the rate is likely to be higher or lower for straddling fish stocks and other high seas fish stocks than for stocks entirely within EEZs. However, the catch from stocks entirely within EEZs accounts for most of the total catch, such that these EEZ fisheries must account for most of the 1.7 million tonnes of estimated discards by bottom trawlers targeting demersal finfish. Many species are discarded depending on the target species (typically the species composition differs between flatfish and roundfish fisheries), geographic area, and depth. Discards of juveniles of the target species are common, as well as species with low commercial value, such as horse mackerel, long jawed mackerel ( spp.), elasmobranchs (e.g. dogfish and skates), arrowtooth flounders and flathead sole. Many benthic invertebrates are discarded, such as molluscs, (e.g. urchins and starfish), , rajids, and whelks. Deep water trawling (often at 1 000 m or more) results in discards of additional species, such as grenadiers, whiptails, rabbitfish, oreos, chondrichthyans (e.g. birdbeak dogfish), batoids and chimaeroids, and cold water corals (Lophelia sp.). In addition to bottom trawlers, demersal longlining is an important form of fishing in the Southern Ocean in the CCAMLR area (FAO statistical areas 48, 58, 88). The discard rate for this type of fishing is estimated as 7.5 percent (ranging from 0.5 to 57 percent). The overall discard rate in the CCAMLR area is estimated as 12.7 percent, resulting in about 2 000 tonnes annually. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 49

Most discards are of finfish and invertebrate species that are abundant and there is little risk that “…their reproduction may become seriously threatened…” (according to Article 5(e) of the FSA, this is one of the standards that apply to species associated with straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks). However, there are some species with abundance so low that even small increases in mortality may raise the risk of being threatened with extinction. In addition, there are species which significant segments of society want protected regardless of their abundance. They are referred to as “charismatic species”. Some charismatic species also have a significant extinction risk. Marine mammals, sea and sea birds have long standing status as charismatic species and/or species at risk (of extinction). More recently, cold water corals (Lophelia sp.) have gained public attention such that they might also be regarded as charismatic. Some species of cold water corals might have extremely small geographic ranges (e.g. on the top of a single seamount), which means they may be vulnerable to localized depletion and possibly extinction, as well as being charismatic. However, apparent localized geographic distributions might also reflect under-sampling in other areas where the species might be present. Charismatic species and species at risk of extinction are known bycatch of fisheries for highly migratory fish stocks, straddling fish stocks and other high seas fish stocks. Sea turtles and sea birds are a well documented bycatch in longline fisheries for tuna and tuna like species. Sea birds are also taken by longline fisheries for tunas (e.g. as in the southern bluefin tuna fishery) and for demersal species, such as the Southern Ocean demersal longline fishery for toothfish. Concern about sea bird mortality from longline fisheries lead the FAO Committee on Fisheries (FAO, 2003d) to adopt an International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries (FAO, 2003b). Measures have been introduced in several fisheries to reduce seabird bycatch. For example the seabird bycatch reduction programme of CCAMLR has reduced seabird mortality by 80 percent or more (CCAMLR, http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/E/e_pubs/am/man-ant/p4.htm). Concern about longline bycatch of turtles in fisheries for highly migratory fish stocks prompted FAO to hold both an Expert Consultation (FAO, 2004a) and a Technical Consultation (FAO, 2004b) to consider ways of reducing mortality. Recent experiments aimed at reducing sea turtle bycatch and mortality are promising. For example, changes in hook shape and bait type reduced the catch rate of loggerhead turtles and leatherback turtles by 90 percent and 75 percent in the Northwest Atlantic. Some of the Regional Fisheries Bodies with jurisdiction over fisheries that interact with sea turtles have begun to adopt measures to reduce interactions (see the reports of the Expert and Technical Consultations mentioned above). In general, the impact of sea turtle bycatch by longline fisheries for highly migratory fish stocks is unknown, but it could jeopardize some turtle populations that are severely depleted, even if the longline fisheries were not the primary cause of the depletion. Bycatch of marine mammals is known to occur in some trawl fisheries (particularly large high speed pelagic trawls) and to a lesser extent on longlines. It is unclear to what degree bycatch by trawlers and longliners occurs in high seas fisheries, but there is probably some. In the case of purse seine fishing for tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, dolphin are intentionally encircled in the nets since they are an indicator of the location of schools of tuna. This practice has resulted in a cumulative mortality of several million dolphins since the 1960, jeopardizing some dolphin species. This led to the negotiation of the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AICDP), which entered into force in 1999, and whose Secretariat is provided by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). The Program reduced drastically the mortality from 132 000 dolphins in 1986 to about 1 500 in 2003. In spite of this success, dolphin populations appear to have been slow to recover (see http://www.iattc.org/DolphinSafeENG.htm and http://swfsc.nmfs.noaa.gov/PRD/ for more information about the Program and the slow recovery of some dolphin populations). The recent expansion of trawl fisheries to deepwater (often much more than a 1 000 m) into areas previously unfished has resulted in the bycatch of cold water corals (Lophelia sp.), sometimes as boulder size pieces. Rarely has the impact of expanding deepwater trawl fisheries been documented from the initiation of fishing, but for the fishery for orange roughy on the South Tasman Rise straddling the Australian EEZ south of Tasmania, observers estimated in the first year of the fishery that 10 tonnes of coral per tow were brought up. This extrapolates to 10 000 tonnes of coral associated with a catch of about 4 000 tonnes of orange roughy (Anderson and Clark, 2003; Gianni, 2004).

The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 50

6.2 Physical contact by fishing gear with organisms that are not caught, and indirect processes Trawling is the primary type of fishing that results in physical contact between fishing gear and associated species and their habitat. The bycatch of cold water corals is probably a symptom of a larger impact of trawling as reefs are damaged more extensively than indicated by the corals hauled up in nets. Trawls also come in physical contact with the bottom in areas where reefs are not present and here the affects are less obvious, but ecosystems are altered and species of benthic organisms will be differently affected. Indirect processes affect the growth, survival and reproduction of species that are the target of fisheries, as well as associated species. When fisheries remove fish from populations, food webs are altered. Some species may suffer from the loss of prey; others may benefit from removal of their predators. Species that compete will be affected differently with cascading impacts on other dependent species. Alteration of the sea bottom resulting from physical contact by fishing gear probably changes habitat suitability thus indirectly effecting associated species. For example, some species depend on complex “three dimensional” biogenic structures, such as reefs, for shelter from predators. When such structures are destroyed, the species may disappear. Impacts through indirect processes are hard to detect, and even harder to predict. However, they must occur. The International Council for Exploration of the Sea is a good source of information on the ecosystem effects of fishing (for example http://www.ices.dk/pubs/crr/crr272/CRR272.pdf). Also, the US National Research Council published a report on the effects of trawling on the seafloor (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10323.html). 7. STRADDLING FISH STOCKS, HIGHLY MIGRATORY FISH STOCKS AND OTHER HIGH SEAS FISH STOCKS FOR WHICH NO MEASURES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY REGIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS

Fisheries on highly migratory tuna and tuna-like species, are all under some form of management. However, the global nature of the fisheries for some highly migratory species, including the high global mobility and interlinks of the fishing fleets and markets, make it more difficult for regional organizations to manage fisheries on these species than it is to manage fisheries that are less global. Unlike fisheries for tuna and tuna like species, management of fisheries for oceanic sharks and other highly migratory species is spotty and incomplete. The International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks is a non-binding instrument that should guide management of oceanic sharks, but it does not implement conservation measures. Regional Fisheries Organizations that have jurisdiction over fisheries that interact with oceanic sharks and other highly migratory species (particularly longline fisheries) are aware of bycatch issues, but for the most part, it is unregulated. With the exception of a few species producing large catches (e.g. tunas and swordfish), knowledge of the biology and state of exploitation of highly migratory species (such as billfishes and sailfishes) remains scarce. Knowledge is even more limited for most highly migratory sharks. Fisheries on pomfrets, sauries and dolphinfish are sometimes included in national fishery management plans, either as a component of the plans for other species or on their own, but generally speaking, a more systematic treatment of these species is necessary before it could be said that the fisheries exploiting them are properly managed. Most fisheries on straddling fish stocks are either covered, or in the process of being covered, by existing regional fisheries management organizations, or organizations and arrangements that are in the process of being formed. The situation is more variable for fisheries for other high seas fish stocks. For example, NEAFC has jurisdiction over deep water fisheries (some of which are on other high seas The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 51 fish stocks) of the Northeast Atlantic, whereas there is no management authority with jurisdiction over fisheries for other high seas fish stocks of the Indian Ocean.

8. STATE OF FISHERIES FOR OCEANIC SPECIES BASED ON AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF CATCH TRENDS The state of fisheries for oceanic species was assessed using the method developed by Grainger and Garcia (1996) to analyze historical catch data for the worldwide (updated and expanded in Garcia, de Leiva Moreno and Grainger, 2005). The method had also been applied to the Eastern Central Atlantic (Garibaldi and Grainger, 2004) and to the Cuban marine fisheries (Baisre, 2000). The model used to analyze the catch trends is based on a simple generalized fishery development FIGURE 55 model incorporating five phases: (1) Total global catches of marine resources categorized as Undeveloped: low initial catches; oceanic-epipelagic, 1950–2004 (2) Developing: rapidly rising catches; (3) Maturing: catches 7 Oceanic epipelagic reaching and remaining around their historical maximum; (4) Senescent: 6 Top resources analysed catches consistently falling below Others the historical maximum; (5) 5 Recovering: catches showing a new

onnes) phase of increase after a period of 4 senescence. This approach was applied to 3 historical catch data of oceanic-

Catch (million t epipelagic and oceanic-deepwater 2 species as classified by Garibaldi and Limongelli (2003). Data were 1 extracted from the FAO capture fishery production statistics for 0 1950–2004 (FAO, 2006a). 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 The top “resources” (defined FIGURE 56 as species by statistical fishing Total global catches of marine resources categorized as area) were selected on the basis of oceanic-deepwater, 1950–2004 catches during 1950–2004 totaling 4 100 000 tonnes or more. The data Oceanic deepwater referring to landings of aggregated species were excluded from the Top resources analysed analysis, except where the grouping 3 Others is confined to a single genus, such as Frigate and bullet tunas (Auxis nnes) thazard and A. rochei). These top resources accounted for 97 percent 2 of total oceanic-epipelagic catches and for 88 percent of the total Catch (million to oceanic-deepwater catches as can 1 be seen in Figures 55 and 56. The species included in the top resources analyzed are shown in. 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 52

TABLE 5 Top species in the categories oceanic-epipelagic and oceanic-deepwater which were subjected to cluster analysis Oceanic-epipelagic Oceanic-deepwater English name Scientific name English name Scientific name Albacore Thunnus alalunga Argentines Argentina spp. Antarctic krill Euphausia superba Beaked redfish Sebastes mentella Atlantic bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus Black scabbardfish Aphanopus carbo Macruronus Atlantic pomfret Brama brama novaezelandiae Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus Blue ling Molva dypterygia Blue Micromesistius Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus whiting(=Poutassou) poutassou Glossanodon Black marlin Makaira indica Deepsea smelt semifasciatus Blue marlin Makaira nigricans Electron subantarctic Electrona carlsbergi Common dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus Geryons nei Geryon spp. Reinhardtius European flying squid Todarodes sagittatus Greenland halibut hippoglossoides Frigate and bullet Auxis thazard, Grenadiers nei Macrourus spp. tunas A.rochei Lampanyctodes Indo-Pacific sailfish Istiophorus platypterus Hector's lanternfish hectoris Japanese flying squid Todarodes pacificus Ling Molva molva Macroramphosus Japanese flyingfish Cypselurus agoo Longspine snipefish scolopax Hoplostethus Jumbo flying squid Dosidicus gigas Orange roughy atlanticus Macruronus Kawakawa Euthynnus affinis Patagonian grenadier magellanicus Little tunny(=Atl.black Dissostichus Euthynnus alletteratus Patagonian toothfish skipj) eleginoides Ommastrephes Neon flying squid Queen crab Chionoecetes opilio bartrami Northern shortfin Coryphaenoides Illex illecebrosus Roundnose grenadier squid rupestris Pacific bluefin tuna Thunnus orientalis Sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria Pacific saury Cololabis saira Silver gemfish solandri Carcharhinus Silky shark Silver scabbardfish Lepidopus caudatus falciformis Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis Silver warehou Seriolella punctata Micromesistius Southern bluefin tuna Thunnus maccoyii Southern blue whiting australis Striped marlin Tetrapturus audax Tusk(=Cusk) Brosme brosme Swordfish Xiphias gladius Wellington flying Nototodarus sloani squid Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares

The time series of catches were standardized (rescaled to Mean = 0; Standard deviation = 1) giving equal weight to all resources, independently of their magnitude and variance, to facilitate comparison of their trends and then grouped by shape using the K-Means Cluster Analysis (as The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 53 implemented in STATISTICA Version 7.1, with default settings and limiting the number of clusters to 6). Based on an analysis of the slope, the profiles were sliced into phases corresponding to the 5 stages of development indicated above. The total number (and percentage) of resources in each phase were calculated each year, across the whole data set. The overall patterns are shown in Figures 57 and 58. An identical analysis was carried out with only the species considered as “highly migratory”; as the results were almost identical to those for the oceanic-epipelagic category they are not presented separately here. The species composition of this oceanic-epipelagic category contains virtually all highly migratory fish species, plus some additional (krill, flying fish and squid) species as indicated in Table 5. Whereas catches of the oceanic-epipelagic resources showed a fairly steady increase during the whole time period (Figure 55), fisheries for oceanic-deepwater resources increased more slowly at first, but then more rapidly from the 1970s onwards (Figure 56). As already pointed out, this is presumably a result of technological developments which allowed fishing in deeper waters, but also because of reduced fishing FIGURE 57 opportunities in more coastal areas Percentage of the world’s top oceanic-epipelagic marine fishery elsewhere (e.g. due to extended resources in various phases of fishery development, 1950–2004 jurisdictions and declining resources) which encouraged 100% exploitation in deeper waters. 90% Oceanic epipelagic These different historical 80% development patterns are reflected in the comparative analysis of the 70% evolution of the oceanic-epipelagic 60% Recovering Senescent versus oceanic-deepwater fisheries. 50% The proportion of resources with Mature 40% fisheries classified as “undeveloped” Developing fell to zero by the late 1960s for the 30% Undeveloped oceanic-epipelagic resources 20% (Figure 57) but not until the late 10% 1970s for the oceanic-deepwater resources (Figure 58). By the early 0% 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85- 90- 95- 00- 1970s, more than 50 percent of the 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99 04 oceanic-epipelagic resources had evolved to mature or senescent FIGURE 58 stages. Since then, there has not been Percentage of the world’s top oceanic-deepwater marine fishery much change for these resources, resources in various phases of fishery development, 1950–2004 with room for further development 10 0 % for about 40 percent, and about 20 Oceanic 90% percent classified as senescent. By deepwater the early 1980s, the fraction of 80% oceanic deep water resources with 70% room for further development had Recovering declined to about 35 percent, and 60% Senescent during the most recent period 40 50% percent are classified as senescent, Mature 40% more than in any other stage of Developing development. This result reinforces 30% Undeveloped the concern that deepwater resources 20% are generally more vulnerable to 10 % over-exploitation due to their slow growth, longevity and lower 0% 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- 80- 85- 90- 95- 00- replacement potential. 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99 04 The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 54

Garcia, de Leiva Moreno and Grainger (2005) noted that over two thirds of all resources appear to be either “mature”, “senescent” or “recovering” which underscores the global need to control fishing effort and capacity. It is apparent that this need applies no less to oceanic, and particularly deepwater species. 9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

9.1 State of the stocks The total reported catch in 2004 of highly migratory species is 5.1 million tonnes dominated by catches of tuna and tuna like species. Fisheries for highly migratory species are important in all oceans and semi-enclosed sea, except for polar regions. Fisheries for straddling fish stocks are much more localized, primarily occurring in a few regions where continental shelves extend beyond the 200 miles Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) limit or where the high productivity of the coastal area favour a more expanded distribution of coastal stocks into the high seas, or attracts high seas resources into the EEZ. Most of the species that form straddling stocks, also form fish stocks entirely within EEZs, and some of them may make up other high seas fish stocks that are entirely fished on the high seas. Almost certainly, most of the catch of species that occur as straddling stocks is within EEZ, probably mostly from stocks that are not straddling (e.g. Atlantic cod is a straddling stock species, but most cod stocks are not straddling). Therefore, it is not meaningful to report on the total catch of species that form straddling stocks, and there is insufficient data to report on the catch of these species solely for stocks that are straddling. Most fisheries for other high seas fish stocks are deep water fisheries (being conducted at depths of the order of 1 000 m, or more). The total catch from deep water species (including species that are more likely to form straddling stocks, such as blue whiting) has increased steeply since the mid 1990s and it was 3.8 million tonnes in 2004, but the recent increase is largely due to blue whiting catches in the northeast Atlantic. If blue whiting is excluded, catches from deepwater species that are likely to FIGURE 59 form other high seas stocks peaked at Summary of the state of exploitation of highly migratory of 1.75 million tonnes in 1998 and have tuna and tuna-like species, highly migratory species of oceanic since declined to 1.4 million tonnes sharks, and straddling stocks. Other high sea fish stocks are in 2004. There is also insufficient included with straddling stocks since fisheries for these types of data in global databases to stocks cannot be distinguished. State of Exploitation is distinguish catches from deep water classified as under-exploited (U), moderately exploited (M), fully exploited(F), over-exploited (O), depleted (D) or fisheries or for other high seas fish recovering (R). Percentages are calculated for stocks for which stocks from those on straddling the state of exploitation can be determined. It is unknown for stocks or those on entirely EEZ 73 percent of the stocks considered in this report stocks. However, in the case of deep 60% water species and once blue whiting World overall catches are excluded, a much higher Tunas and tuna-like proportion of the total catch probably 50% Oceanic sharks occurs on the high seas than for Straddling stocks species that occur as straddling 40% stocks. The state of exploitation of the 30% fishery resources considered in this report, when it is known, is 20% summarized in Figure 59. For tuna and tuna-like species, the state of 10 % exploitation is problematic (over- exploited or depleted) for about 0% 30 percent of the stocks, which is UMF ODR similar to the situation for all fish State of Exploitation stocks tracked by FAO (2005a). The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 55

About 50 percent of the stocks are being exploited near the normal target for fisheries management. Exploitation could be increased for about 20 percent of the stocks of tuna and tuna-like highly migratory species. The state of oceanic shark fisheries is more problematic with more than half of the stocks listed as over-exploited or depleted. However, this result might be an artefact to some degree of the tendency to be precautionary in the classification of sharks because of their life history characteristics that make them particularly vulnerable to over-exploitation and depletion. Also, poor knowledge of stock structure may distort state of exploitation information for sharks. For example, a local fishery deemed to be over-exploited may be exploiting a stock distributed over a much larger area, which is not over-exploited over its entire range. However, it is also possible that localized depletion will “tip the balance” for the entire stock to the over-exploited category. The bottom line is that there are many factors that make it difficult to assess the state of exploitation of oceanic sharks. The state of exploitation for straddling stocks (including other high seas fish stocks) is even more problematic than for highly migratory species, with nearly two thirds of the stocks for which the state of exploitation can be determined being classified as overexploited or depleted. In part, this reflects some well known over-exploited and depleted straddling stocks, such as cod stocks of Newfoundland, Canada, that have not recovered after more than a decade of stringent fisheries management measures. It also reflects several deep water fisheries for species that are known to be vulnerable to over- exploitation and depletion, at least locally. However, information on these deep water fisheries is inadequate to determine the state of exploitation reliably in most cases. Also, it should be understood that information on the state of exploitation for straddling fish stocks and other high seas fish stocks is a mixture of information for high seas fisheries and EEZ fisheries. Some of the problem of over- exploitation and depletion of stocks of these species has nothing to do with fishing on the high seas. The analysis of the state of fisheries based on catch trends (rather than stock assessments), described in the previous section, indicates that fisheries for pelagic species (including most highly migratory species) began developing in the 1950s. By the late 1950s, more than half of the fisheries for these species had evolved to at least a mature stage of development. At present, about 70 percent of the fisheries are mature or senescent. This conclusion is similar to the conclusions above based on stock assessments for tuna and tuna-like species and oceanic sharks. For oceanic deep water species, development was somewhat slower with more than 50 percent reaching the mature stage or beyond by the early 1960s. At present, 70 percent of the fisheries for oceanic deep water species have evolved to at least a mature stage, including more than 40 percent which are senescent.

9.2 Issues to consider in evaluating the performance of the Fish Stocks Agreement One main objective in reviewing the fisheries for highly migratory species, straddling stocks and other high seas fish stocks is to aid in the evaluation of the performance of the FSA. Some issues to be considered in evaluating the FSA are: 1. What is the state of the stocks that are subject to the FSA compared to fisheries solely under coastal state jurisdiction? 2. How well are high-seas stocks, not explicitly addressed by the FSA (other high-seas fish stocks), doing compared to highly migratory species and straddling stocks? 3. Has the state of stocks improved with the FSA? 4. Are associated species afforded adequate protection under the FSA? 5. Ultimately, how much added value, in terms of societal objectives (including ecosystem considerations), has resulted from the FSA, and how might it be increased? However, the ability to answer these questions is seriously impeded by two key factors: (1) limitations of available data, and (2) time since the FSA came into force. Unfortunately, there is no global data set that allows the catch and state of straddling stocks, and other high seas fish stocks, to be separated from EEZ fisheries. Comparing the catch and state of species (or species group) statistical area combinations for which fisheries occur partially or entirely on the high seas to all fisheries, may give some indication of the relative performance of the FSA compared to coastal state jurisdiction, but real differences, if they exit, will be masked. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 56

Published work on the effects of traditional fisheries for groundfishes, mostly within EEZs (Christensen et al., 2003) could be compared with others mostly on highly migratory species (Myers and Worm, 2003: Baum and Myers, 2004). The shortcomings found in the later studies by experts on highly migratory species (Burgess et al., 2005) have already been mentioned, while it is also noted that the exclusion of large scale fisheries for herring and mackerel in the analysis of the effect of fisheries within EEZs exaggerates the declines in commercially important species. This topic is further covered in the concluding remarks below. Evaluating the protection afforded to associated species under the FSA is difficult with the available data on bycatch and state of exploitation, or lack thereof. Furthermore, the link between high-seas fishing and the state of associated species is difficult to determine since many of the associated species are also impacted by EEZ fisheries (often more so than high seas fisheries), coastal development and other human activities. Economic and social data related to the performance of fisheries, particularly fisheries on the high seas, is even more limited. Even if the data limitations described above did not exist, one would not expect a measurable resource response in the brief time since the FSA was approved by the Conference parties in late 1996, and especially, not since it entered into force in 2001. It takes time to establish new regional fishery management organizations (a key element of the Agreement) where they do not exist. Translating strategic approaches embodied in the agreement (such as the precautionary approach) into operational protocols also demands time. Most importantly, stocks do not respond instantly to new conservation measures. For fish stocks that have been overexploited and depleted, the recovery process follows a sequence of regulations that reduce fishing mortality, allows more fish in the population to survive, grow and reproduce, producing future generations of fish that are more abundant, and so on. Inevitably, the process takes at least a generation or more, such that rebuilding periods of a decade or more are common. In some cases, changes in ecosystems not within the scope of the FSA might delay recovery longer, if it is to occur at all. The slow recovery of several straddling fish stocks in the northwest Atlantic after more than 10 years of very stringent fishery limitations illustrates the intergenerational nature of the rebuilding process and the potential importance of ecosystem changes. In light of these factors, evaluation of the performance of the FSA might focus, as a first stage, on actions taken to implement the provisions of the Agreement, as necessary steps towards improvements in fisheries and fish stocks. Ultimately, these actions should lead to the long-term conservation and sustainable use of these stocks, which is the objective of the Agreement. With better data and the passing of time, future evaluations should then focus more directly on the concrete outcomes of these actions and assess if the fisheries and the fish stocks are better off. During the last decade, since the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995) was agreed and since the Fish Stock Agreement was adopted by the UN Conference, many reports have been prepared describing actions that need to be taken to improve fisheries and the ecosystems upon which they depend. These include FAO Strategies, International Plans of Action, and Technical Guidelines (http://www.fao.org/fi/default.asp). A brief account of some key actions upon which good performance of the Fish Stocks Agreement is predicated is given below, concluding with some comments on options for conservation and management of other high seas fish stocks which are not explicitly subject to the FSA, and on growing public concern about fisheries. The key actions include improvements on the available information on stocks and fisheries, the application of the precautionary approach, reducing excess fishing capacity and implementing the ecosystem approach.

9.3 Improving information on fisheries and fishery resources Data describing fisheries (what, where and how much is caught, and how fisheries are conducted including effort by gear type) is the fundamental underpinning of fishery management. Such data is needed for scientific assessments of the state of fish stocks and to estimate sustainable yields. It is also needed to monitor the performance of fisheries and to monitor compliance with regulations on catch, effort, gear type, and time and area fished. Virtually all national and intergovernmental regional fisheries organizations, as well as FAO, require collection and reporting of fisheries data. The Fish Stocks Agreement calls for the collection and sharing of such data. However, there are numerous shortcomings in fisheries data for the following reasons: The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 57

1. Misreporting. – Ironically, fisheries management both depends on fisheries data and it creates an incentive to misreport it. Regulations that set a total allowable catch are notorious for creating an economic incentive for the fishing industry to misreport. While the design of reporting systems and enforcement can counterbalance the incentive for misreporting, for many fisheries it is a serious problem that is undermining scientific advice on fisheries management and the ability to monitor the state of fish stocks. For example, the annual report (http://www.ices.dk/advice/icesadvice.asp) of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management (ACFM) of the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) points out numerous times uncertainty in scientific advice for fisheries of the Northeast Atlantic resulting from concerns about the quality of fisheries data. The report for cod off Ireland is a particularly good example of types of concern about the quality of fisheries data (http://www.ices.dk/committe/acfm/comwork/report/2005/oct/cod-iris.pdf). The problem of misreporting is so severe for deepwater fisheries (many of which are straddling stocks or other high seas fish stocks) that ACFM concluded that “it is currently not possible to provide advice for specific fisheries for deep-sea species”. The occurrence of misreporting in Europe is common knowledge routinely receiving attention in the popular media. European Union Commissioner, Joe Borg, highlighted the serious nature of the problem of non-compliance related misreporting of catches stating that “Failure to enforce fisheries measures works against the interests of fishermen as it leads to overfishing, depleted fish stocks, smaller catches and shrinking income”. An example of media interest in the problem of misreporting, including Commissioner Borg’s statement is provided in: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9707. Misreporting is not unique to European fisheries. A Canadian government report (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2003/nafo_e.htm) addresses it for the NAFO area in the Northwest Atlantic. Misreporting of catches from the Southern Ocean area of CCAMLR has also been reported (http://www.asoc.org/Documents/XXIIICCAMLR/ASOCIllegaltoothfishtradepap.pdf). 2. Important types of data are not collected. – For straddling stocks, highly migratory fish stocks, and other high seas fish stocks, three key types of fisheries data are lacking for many, if not most, fisheries. One is data on discards. As discussed earlier in this report, mortality from discarding is substantial in tonnage, and it can seriously impact some stocks and species. In some cases, the impact is on species of no interest to fisheries, but there is significant societal concern about some of them (such as marine mammals, deepwater corals, sea turtles, sea birds). Some of these species are endangered. Lack of reliable data on discards probably means that some serious impacts of fishing are overlooked, and conversely, critics of fisheries may suspect or assert that impacts are more serious than they really are. Reliable data is needed to focus attention on the most critical discard issues. A second type of data on fisheries that is rarely collected in a systematic and comprehensive manner is data on social and economic aspects of fisheries. The purpose of fisheries is to generate net benefits for society. Typically, society is interested in revenues, profits, employment, food security, and how these benefits are distributed. Managers are often challenged by difficult conservation decisions in the face of concerns about adverse impact on benefits (particularly in the short term). Yet, they typically have to make such decisions without the benefit of scientific analyses based on reliable social and economic data. Similarly, at the policy level, long term strategies for fisheries would benefit from social and economic data. The need to collect social and economic data is further supported by the fact that the modern concept of sustainability is understood to be multidimensional, with at least bio- ecological, economic, social and institutional components (FAO, 2002a). Some of the past failures of fishery management can be linked to not taking into account the human reactions to the management measures adopted and how they were applied. Many human reactions could have been anticipated if appropriate input from the social sciences had been included in the decision-making process. The third type of data that is difficult to obtain is data on product flow. What happens to fish that are caught in a particular fishery? What is the source of sold in particular markets? Such data would not only be helpful to understand the distribution of benefits from fisheries, but it would greatly assist fishery managers to deal with Illegal, Unregulated and The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 58

Unreported catches (IUU), thus improving the quality of scientific information and enhancing compliance. Some Regional Fishery Management Organizations (e.g. ICCAT, CCAMLR, IOTC) have implemented their own tracking systems in an effort to cope with IUU. FAO recently reviewed experience with trade documentation schemes, including catch certification and catch demonstration (FAO, 2002b). Clearly, a comprehensive approach to tracking fish products would be more efficient and effective. It would also assist with public health concerns that exist for some fish products. 3. Data access and compatibility problems – Not withstanding the limitations noted above, it is common for useful data to exist, but not be available to scientists and managers that need it. Particularly for international fisheries that occur on the high seas, data is usually aggregated (in time, space, by gear type, etc) before being reported to regional fisheries organizations and FAO. These databases are highly aggregated summaries of the actual data that is collected by national and local authorities. Thus, FAO is not able to distinguish between catches from EEZs and the high seas, for example. There are also issue of compatibility between data bases. Some of these problems could be solved by a new data management architecture of a hierarchy of linked data bases rather than redundant data bases of increasingly aggregated summaries at higher levels in the hierarchy. Many of the limitations of current programs for collection of fisheries data have a historical origin. Decades ago, before modern information technology, data collection, management and reporting requirements had to be simple and limited in the extent of data. Also, prior to widespread recognition of the vulnerability of marine fisheries to overexploitation and depletion, there was a reluctance to “burden” the fishing industry with reporting requirements. Lack of concern about conservation also fostered an implicit priority for protecting fisheries information that was asserted to be business sensitive at the expense of data needs for science and management. Today, access to fisheries resources should be understood to come with responsibility to provide the data that is needed for science based conservation and management. It is also suggested that it is time to rethink data collection, management and reporting programs for fisheries in light of modern information technology. In this regard, it is not enough to modernize technology for managing the data that has been traditionally collected. Old “taboos” on the types of data that could/should be collected need to be put aside. The FAO Strategy for Improving Information on the Status and Trends of Capture Fisheries (FAO, 2003a) can serve as the point of departure for reshaping data collection to match today’s needs and opportunities. Of course, scientific assessments of the state of fish stocks and fisheries require more than fisheries data. Research on the biology and demographics of the fishery resources and their relationship to the ecosystems that contain them is also needed. Fishery independent surveys of resource abundance (e.g. statistically designed surveys with standardized fishing gear or acoustics, possibly conducted in cooperation with the fishing industry and other interested parties) are particularly important. For some demersal straddling stocks, such surveys are conducted, such as for straddling cod stocks within the management area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. However, the logistics of conducting resource surveys for many straddling stocks is difficult compared to surveys of more coastal stocks (typically in shallower water). Also, mixing of stocks when they are away from their breeding areas adds to the problem. Research on survey technology and design, as well as cooperation between fishing nations, could improve the situation. For highly migratory species, resource surveys are even more difficult than for straddling stocks, and such surveys are rare. The problem is that it is usually necessary to monitor vast areas, and there are few technology options available for doing so. Again, research on technology and design, and international cooperation, could help. For other high seas fish stocks there is another scientific problem that must be overcome. Typically, fisheries for these resources exploit seasonal fish aggregations (e.g. on the peak of a seamount over a period of a few months). Little is known about the turnover rate of fish in these aggregations or how large a fraction of the total population they are. Their geographic range when they are off the fishing grounds is unknown. While it is tempting to assume that these fisheries are exploiting “discrete fish stocks” (a term used by the Fourth Informal Meeting of the States Parties to the FSA, 31 May–3 June 2005, United Nations, New York), the relationship between aggregations (e.g. on nearby or even distant seamounts) is almost always unknown. In some cases, the high seas The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 59 aggregations may be from the same stock as aggregations that are fished within EEZs, thus making them straddling stocks. For deepwater fisheries on aggregating species, the situation described above poses the following dilemma. Most deepwater species are long lived with low productivity, thus making them vulnerable to overfishing. In fact, there is ample evidence that aggregations on localized fishing grounds are quickly depleted. However, there is no basis to judge the impact on stocks that exist over unkown geographic areas. Conducting the research necessary to determine stock structure and assess the state of stocks will be difficult and expensive for deepwater species that potentially occupy vast areas. Development of deepwater fisheries without such information is not consistent with the precautionary approach (discussed below), but are the fisheries worth the cost of the necessary research? New ways of acquiring the information to manage those fisheries sustainably will need to be found.

9.4 Applying the precautionary approach The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 highlighted the importance of the precautionary approach in Principle 15, which stated: “in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied… Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement embrace the precautionary approach. FAO (1996) prepared Technical Guidelines for the Code including guidelines for the precautionary approach. The guidelines characterize the approach as prudent foresight taking account of uncertainties and the need to take action with incomplete knowledge. It requires: • consideration of the needs of future generations and avoidance of changes that are not potentially reversible; • prior identification of undesirable outcomes and of measures that will avoid them or correct them promptly; • that any necessary corrective measures are initiated without delay, and that they should achieve their purpose promptly, on a timescale not exceeding two or three decades; • that where the likely impact of resource use is uncertain, priority should be given to conserving the productive capacity of the resource; • that harvesting and processing capacity should be commensurate with estimated sustainable levels of resource, and that increases in capacity should be further contained when resource productivity is highly uncertain; • all fishing activities must have prior management authorization and be subject to periodic review; • an established legal and institutional framework for fishery management, within which management plans that implement the above points are instituted for each fishery, and • appropriate placement of the burden of proof by adhering to the requirements above. Article 6 and Annex II of the FSA add specificity to the precautionary approach by calling for stock specific reference points and pre-agreement on actions to be taken if those reference points are violated (e.g. stock size too low or fishing mortality rate too high). Such reference points and pre- agreed actions are often expressed as “control rules” for fishery management, although not all harvest control rules are precautionary. The precautionary aspect depends on how the control rule performs relative to the risk of undesirable outcomes (based on the preponderance of evidence) and the severity of the outcomes. The FSA makes it clear that undesirable outcomes should be avoided. Article 6, paragraph 4 says that “States shall take measures to ensure that, when reference points are approached, they will not be exceeded.” As reported in the UN Oceans Atlas (http://www.oceansatlas.com/world_fisheries_and_ /html/govern/capture/precappr/default.htm), the precautionary approach has been widely adopted by fisheries bodies including CCMALR, IPHC, IWC, ICES, NAFO, NASCO, ICCAT, MHLC, SEAFO, and it is being discussed by APFIC, WECAF, and GFCM. It is also applied by several countries including the United States of America, Canada, Australia and South Africa. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 60

However, the approach is largely limited to biological aspects of fisheries. Application to other aspects of ecosystems and to the other components of sustainability have been less tangible. It is more difficult to formulate the equivalent of fishery control rules for ecosystems, although it is feasible to agree on actions to be taken if there are undesirable changes in ecosystems. As described above, the precautionary approach is at the forefront of current fishery management deliberations. However, the estimated risk taken relative to undesirable outcomes is not well documented for most fishery management decisions. If the actual level of risk is unknown, decisions must be made based on estimates of risk. Even if it were, managers may or may not have specified the risk that they consider precautionary. The acceptable level of risk is a management decision that should reflect the severity of the undesirable outcome. The actual degree to which the precautionary approach is being applied is difficult to assess.

9.5 Matching fishing capacity to fishery resources Historically, under open access conditions, fishing fleets have expanded far beyond the size needed to catch economically the available fishery resources. Restriction of fishing activity by catch limits, effort limits [such as days of fishing allowed], or by other measures have made fishing less efficient but they have not prevented the depletion of fishery resources. Even under strict management to protect the fishery resources, costs for fishing capacity (e.g. vessels) and other inputs to fishing (labour, fuel) are larger than necessary and potential economic benefits are wasted. Fisheries with marginal economic performance cannot absorb short term loses that inevitably become necessary to reduce catches to prevent overfishing, rebuild fish stocks, or to respond to a down turn in fish stocks due to natural variability. Thus, fishery managers are reluctant to reduce catches until there is overwhelming evidence that they must. The tendency to err on the side of short term economic needs of fisheries instead of long term conservation and sustainable fisheries leads to overexploitation and further depletion of fishery resources. This phenomenon helps to motivate the precautionary approach, which shifts decisions in the face of uncertainty to favour conservation. However, making precautionary decisions with respect to fishery resources does not solve the problem of poor economic performance and social disruption that result from excessive fishing capacity. It is also harder to make precautionary decision when there is overcapacity. Widespread recognition of the problem of excessive fishing capacity led the FAO to adopt an International Plan of Action (IPOA) for the Management of Fishing Capacity (http://www.fao.org/figis/servlet/static?xml=CCRF_prog.xml&dom=org&xp_nav=2,3). FAO (2000a) and WHAT (2000) and many other reports highlight the importance of allocating access rights to fisheries if fishing capacity is to match sustainable yields from fishery resources. Without rights, fishing vessels race to catch as large a share of the fishery resource as they can by investing in more and more fishing capacity until fisheries are no longer profitable. This phenomena is known as the “race for the fish.” When shares of the available fishery resource are allocated to participants in the fishery, the incentive changes from spending more to catch as much as possible, to using the share allocated at the lowest possible cost. Schemes for allocating rights to shares in fisheries (such as individual non-transferable quotas, individual transferable quotas or ITQs, and territorial use rights or TURF) have been implemented in many countries, and they are becoming increasingly common. While it is clear that rights based allocation of shares in fisheries is a key element of managing fishing capacity, it is not clear that international organizations with responsibility for managing fishing on the high seas have the ability to allocate rights effectively. It is common for Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) to allocate shares of the total allowable catch to member countries. However, unless these countries further allocate their shares to individual fishing entries of their country, there remains an incentive to “race for the fish.” In general, RFMOs have not attempted to influence national prerogatives on how they use their allocations. The implication is that those countries that do not remove incentives for the wasteful race for the fish are likely to be pressured by their fishing industry to reject the precautionary approach by giving their short term economic interests priority over long term conservation. RFMOs face another challenge in effective allocation of access rights to fisheries. Typically they allocate all of the available shares in the catch to their member countries. However, non-member countries may enter into a race for the same fishery resources. According to the Fish Stocks The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 61

Agreement, these countries should join the RFMO. The FSA calls on non-members of an RFMO to adhere to the RFMO’s conservation measures, thus providing incentive to join so that they can participate in the fishery management decision making. However, countries will be reluctant to join unless they have a reasonable expectation that they will be allocated a share of the allowable catch. This means that existing share must be devalued or the allowable catch must be increased to accommodate new members (ultimately devaluing shares in the future), perhaps putting the fishery resource at risk. Under the doctrine of freedom of the high seas, the potential number of fishing nations that might seek membership expecting to be allocated a share of the catch is large. This scenario is akin to open access to fisheries that can lead to an international race for the fish with negative consequences already described.

9.6 Implementing an ecosystem approach While the Fish Stocks Agreement does not specifically call for an ecosystem approach, Article 5 on general principles highlights the importance of ecosystems by requiring States to: • assess the impacts of fishing, other human activities and environmental factors on target stocks and species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target stocks; • adopt, where necessary, conservation and management measures for species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target stocks, with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened; • minimize pollution, waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish species, (hereinafter referred to as non-target species) and impacts on associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species, through measures including, to the extent practicable, the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear and techniques; Numerous paragraphs of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries also highlight aspects of ecosystems that should be taken into account in fisheries management, such as those described in Annex 1 of the Technical Guidelines for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries in FAO (2003c). According to the guidelines: “The purpose of an ecosystem approach to fisheries … is to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, without jeopardizing the options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and services provided by marine ecosystem.” The guidelines define an ecosystem approach to fisheries as follows: “An ecosystem approach to fisheries strives to balance diverse societal objectives, by taking into account the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human components of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an integrated approach to fisheries within ecologically meaningful boundaries.” In practice, an ecosystem approach must evolve from current approaches to fisheries management by taking account of diverse objectives from a broader group of stakeholders, based on increasing scientific information about relationships between fisheries and ecosystems, applying new approaches to minimize adverse impacts. The ecosystem approach is evolving, rather than be a revolutionary alternative. The approach includes the precautionary approach, matching fishing capacity to fishery resources, and better information on fisheries and fishery resources. There is much evidence that the evolution to an ecosystem approach is underway with precautionary control rules being implemented, new measures to reduce bycatch and habitat alteration from fishing gear, an more access to RFMO by non-governmental organizations representing diverse stakeholders. Undoubtedly, there is more application of an ecosystem approach today than there was five years ago, and there will be even greater application five years from now. However, this does not mean that all stakeholder’s interests and values are being given adequate consideration, that all relevant scientific information is being taken into account, and that managers are properly balancing risk against the potential severity of undesirable outcomes. Since subjectivity is an element of the ecosystem approach (ecosystem objectives reflect compromises between diverse, and sometimes conflicting, human values. They are The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 62 not uniquely determined by science), the degree to which the ecosystem approach is being applied is largely “in the eye of the beholder.”

9.7 Concluding remarks Straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks are clearly subject to the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, but the applicability of the Agreement to other high seas fish stocks is debateable. Without the intent to enter into this debate, comments on some approaches that might be used to put in place conservation and management regimes for these stocks will be made below. Leaving other high seas stocks unmanaged is not consistent with the precautionary approach. The FAO Guideline’s address this point explicitly by stating “all fishing activities must have prior management authorization …” Leaving these fisheries unregulated is particularly a problem because their low productivity makes them especially vulnerable to overfishing and associated ecosystems are known to be fragile. A straightforward approach is for the countries fishing other high seas fish stocks to negotiate an agreement for new regional fishery organizations to cover these resources. Alternatively, a global agreement might be negotiated to cover all deepwater (generally seamount) fisheries that are not subject to other competent management authorities. However, negotiating new fishery management agreements is a difficult, time consuming process. Furthermore, if countries interpret the UN Fish Stocks Agreement as not applying to the other high seas fish stocks, they will not feel compelled to join new fishery management organization or adhere to their conservation measures. It is noted, however, that the relationship between other high seas fish stocks and stocks of the same species fished within EEZs is unknown in most cases. They may in fact be straddling stocks, and arguably, it is precautionary to treat them accordingly. Another approach is for fishing nations to regulate their fishing vessels as required by the United Nations Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management of Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/003/X3130m/X3130E00.HTM) consistent with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The preamble of the legally binding Compliance Agreement acknowledges the non-binding Code of Conduct. The Compliance Agreement states that: • “…no Party shall allow any fishing vessel entitled to fly its flag to be used for fishing on the high seas unless it has been authorized to be so used by the appropriate authority or authorities of that Party…” and • “No Party shall authorize any fishing vessel entitled to fly its flag to be used for fishing on the high seas unless the Party is satisfied that it is able, taking into account the links that exist between it and the fishing vessel concerned, to exercise effectively its responsibilities under this Agreement in respect of that fishing vessel.” The Code of Conduct calls on States to: • “…prevent overfishing and excess fishing capacity and should implement management measures to ensure that fishing effort is commensurate with the productive capacity of the fishery resources and their sustainable utilization” and • “Apply a precautionary approach widely to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources in order to protect them and preserve the aquatic environment, taking account of the best scientific evidence available. The absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species and non-target species and their environment”. The Code of Conduct also call for prior assessment of the potential impact of new fisheries or introduction of new technologies including prior impact assessments (sections 8.4.7 and 12.11) and the adoption of cautious measures for new fisheries (7.5.4). We argue that a Nation that allows a vessel flying its flag to fish without being subject to a conservation regime that can reasonably be expected to conserve vulnerable fishery resources and ecosystems, is not fulfilling the spirit of the Compliance Agreement and the Code of Conduct. As an alternative, they could licence vessels flying their flag to only fish when subject to appropriate conservation measure such as those agreed by a competent Regional Fisheries Management The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 63

Organization. When no such measures exist, authority to fish might be subject to a prior impact assessments leading to a cautious fishery development plan (with adequate monitoring and research). Of course, such unilateral action by individual fishing Nations would be undermined by Nations that act irresponsibly. Perhaps a broad declaration calling on all Nations to adhere to the spirit of the Compliance Agreement and the Code of Conduct along the lines suggested above would help. Another approach that is being actively considered by parties to the Convention on Biodiversity (http://www.biodiv.org) is to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), including areas where fisheries for other high seas fish stocks occur. Numerous possible legal authorities have been identified although their applicability has not been conclusively determined. The United Nations is also considering the option of high Seas MPAs. The validity of this approach partially depends on the intent of the MPAs. If the MPAs are intended to be part of a broad strategy to protect biodiversity, then they would seem to be consistent with the intent of the Convention on Biodiversity. If the intent is specifically to regulate fisheries, then international instruments specifically designed to manage fisheries are an appropriate option. However, the boundary between objectives of fisheries management and biodiversity conservation are not sharp, and biodiversity concerns are likely to gain more momentum if widely agreed fishery management norms for responsible fisheries (such as those embraced by the Code of Conduct) are not fulfilled. Finally, a moratorium on fishing on the high seas, unless fishing is subject to a competent fishery management authority, is an option. It has been suggested during the United Nations Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process on the Law of the Sea. Again, this approach is likely to gain momentum if fishery management is deemed to fall short of agreed norms and practices. Clearly, management of other high seas fish stocks has a high profile with international policy makers, as evidenced by the attention of the General Assembly of the United Nations. While it is important to manage these fisheries responsibly, it is also appropriate to put them in perspective. Most fishing is within EEZs, and most high seas fishing is subject to the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. Fisheries for other high seas fish stocks account for a fraction of a percent of catch, revenues and fishing vessels and only a few countries participate in these fisheries. While the habitat impact of these fisheries might be locally intense, the fraction of the seafloor impacted is infinitesimally small. Most fishing people are engaged in small scale coastal fisheries. They impact coastal ecosystems virtually everywhere, except perhaps in polar regions. Legitimate concerns about other high seas fish stocks should not divert efforts to apply the Code of Conduct to fish stocks and fisheries that need urgent attention, giving particular consideration to small-scale coastal fisheries upon which millions of people are critically dependent. Finally, it is worth highlighting a threat to all fisheries. Fisheries are increasingly receiving media attention worldwide, and the preponderance of this attention is negative. Some of the negative attention is deserved, some of it is not. Regardless, public opinion is turning against fisheries, which threatens all fisheries, even when they are conducted responsibly. The scientific community bears some of the responsibility for this negative trend in public opinion (whether it is deserved or not). Many of the negative media reports are based on presumably authoritative scientific publications that are assumed to have been adequately “quality assured” by journal peer review. However, journal peer reviews are conducted by mail by a few scientists, often with little first hand knowledge of the fisheries being considered, and rarely with access to the data upon which the paper they are reviewing is based. This is only a cursory level of quality assurance. Negative comments generated during the review (e.g. doubts about the validity of the paper) are not made public. In contrast, scientific working groups that advise fishery managers typically involve numerous scientists with first hand knowledge of the fisheries they are considering, who spend many days examining the data upon which they base advice. Their deliberations are often public, and even when they are not, their reports document reservations about conclusions and recommendations. It is recognized that these scientific working groups also have shortcomings, but their conclusions should not be treated as inferior to journal publications. In some cases, relatively unimportant scientific publications (e.g. accurately pointing out something that is well known by fishery experts) generate a lot of negative media attention as a result of scientific journals promoting themselves by issuing press releases, as well as press releases issued by the sponsor of the authors of journal articles. The press accounts sometime sensationalize the relatively unimportant message in the publication, often by quoting the authors saying something that The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 64 probably would not have been accepted as scientifically defensible within the publication. Sometimes other scientists, who may have no direct knowledge of the topic considered in the scientific publication, are quoted making comments that reflect negatively on fisheries, which may only tangentially relate to the published scientific paper. The phenomena described above is a symptom of a broader problem in ecology. Ecology is one of several professional disciplines upon which the lay public (people not expert in the discipline) depends on for advice in making complex personal and societal decisions. Medicine, engineering, law, and accounting are other professions that have analogous social responsibilities. Unlike ecology, these other professions have well developed forms of governance which they impose on themselves, as well as being imposed by governments. Such governance gives assurances to the public the professional advice they are getting comes from experts with practical experience (rarely are professionals certified without some form of apprenticeship). Ultimately, the public deserves to be able to distinguish members of the discipline giving neutral advice, from those advocating for their client, or those advocating their own values. We are concerned that there is confusion between environmental science and scientists pursuing the ideology of environmentalism (i.e. environmental scientists providing dispassionate advice while scientists pursuing environmentalism as an ideology are advocates). It is tempting to respond to negative public opinion by launching a media campaign to positively influence opinions. We believe a more fundamental approach is needed. Fisheries should earn positive public opinion by conscientiously living by the Code of Conduct and other agreements. They should do so transparently and inclusively. The scientific community should candidly assess its role in neutrally advising managers and informing public opinion, including the possibility of establishing governance mechanisms akin to other professions that advise policy makers and the public. An audit process on the performance of fishery management arrangements (e.g. Regional Fishery Management Organizations), which is widely accepted as legitimate by stakeholders, would also go a long way toward accurately (for better or worse) shaping public opinion about fisheries. In our opinion, business as usual is not a sustainable option. 10. REFERENCES

Anderson, O.F. & Clark, M.R. 2003. Analysis of the bycatch in the fishery for orange roughy, Hoplostethus atlanticus, on the South Tasman Rise. Marine and Freshwater Research, (54): 643– 652. Baisre, J.A. 2000. Chronicles of Cuban marine fisheries (1935–1995). Trend analysis and fisheries potential. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 394. Rome, FAO. 26 p. Baum, J.K., Myers, R.A., Kehler, D.G., Worm, B., Harley, S.J. & Doherty, P.A. 2003. Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic. Science, (299): 389–392. Baum, J.K. & Myers, R.A. 2004. Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters, (7): 135–145. Bonfil, R., Meyer, M, Scholl, M.C., Johnson, R., O’Brien, S., Oosthuizen, H., Swanson, S., Kotze, D. & Paterson, M. 2005. Transoceanic migration, spatial dynamics, and population linkages of white sharks. Science (310: 7 October 2005): 100–103. Buonaccorsi, V.P., Morgan, L., Reece, K.S. & Graves, J.E. 1999. Geographic distribution of molecular variance within the blue marlin (Makaira nigricans): A hierarchical analysis of allozyme, single-copy nuclear DNA, and mitochondrial DNA markers. Evolution, 53(2): 568–579 Burgess, G.H., Beerkircher, L.R., Cailliet, G.M. Carlson, J.K., Cortés, E., Goldman, K.J., Grubbs, R.D., Musick, J.A., Musyl, M.K. & Simpfendorfer, C.A. 2005. Is the collapse of shark populations in the northwest Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico real? Fisheries, 30(10): 19–25. Carocci, F. & Majkowski, J. 2003. Atlas of Tuna and Billfish Catches. Statistical Collections. FIGIS Data Collection. Available at: Carocci, F. & Majkowski, J. 2005. Global Tuna Nominal Catches. Statistical Collections. FIGIS Data Collection. Available at: The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 65

Castro, J.I., Woodley, C.M. & Brudek, R.L. 1999. A preliminary evaluation of the status of shark species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 380. Rome, FAO. 72 pp. Available at: Christensen, V., Guénette, S., Heymans, J.J., Walters, C.J., Watson, R., Zeller, D. & Pauly. D. 2003. Hundred-year decline of North Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish and Fisheries, 4: 1–24. Collette, B.B. 1999. Coryphaenidae. In: K.E. Carpenter and V.H. Niem (eds). The living marine resources of the Western Central Pacific. Vol. 4: Bony fishes part 2 (Mugilidae to Carangidae), pp. 2656–2658. FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes. Rome: FAO. Collette, B.B. & Nauen, C.E. 1983. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 2. Scombrids of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of tunas, mackerels, bonitos and related species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, Vol. 2. Rome: FAO. 137 pp. Compagno, L.J.V. 1984a. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 1. to lamniformes. FAO Fisheries Synoposis, No. 125, Vol.4, Part 1. Rome: FAO. 249 pp. Compagno, L.J.V. 1984b. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 4. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 2. . FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, Vol. 4, Part 2. Rome: FAO. pp. 251–655 Compagno, L.J.V. 2001. Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date. Volume 2. Bullhead, mackerel and carpet sharks (Heterodontiformes, Lamniformes and Orectolobiformes). FAO Species Catalogue for Fishery Purposes No. 1, Vol. 2. Rome: FAO. 269 pp. Eschmeyer, W.N., Herald, E.S. & Hammann, H. 1983. A field guide to Pacific coast fishes of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, U.S.A. 336 pp. FAO. 1983. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 2. Scombrids of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of tunas, mackerels, bonitos and related species known to date. B.B. Collette and C.E. Nauen (eds). FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, Vol. 2. Rome. 137 pp. FAO. 1985. FAO species catalogue. Vo1.5. Billfishes of the World. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of marlins, sailfishes, spearfishes and known to date. I. Nakamura (ed.). FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, Vo1.5. Rome. 65 pp. FAO. 1992. Review of the state of world fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Circular, No. 710, Rev. 8. Rome. (Part 1): 114 pp. (Part 2): 28 pp. FAO. 1993. COFI Report of the twentieth session of the Committee on Fisheries. Rome, 15–19 March 1993. FAO Fisheries Report, No. 488. Rome. FAO. 1994. World review of highly migratory species and straddling stocks. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 337. Rome. 70 pp.

FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome. 41 pp. Available at: FAO. 1996. Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 2. 54 pp. Available at: FAO. 2000a. Use of property rights in fisheries management. R. Shotton (ed.) Proceedings of the FishRights99 Conference. Fremantle, Western Australia, 11–19 November 1999. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 404/2. Rome. 462 pp. Available at: FAO. 2000b. Fisheries management. 1. Conservation and management of sharks. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 4, Suppl. 1. Rome. 37 pp. FAO. 2002a. Report and documentation of the International Workshop on factors contributing to unsustainability and overexploitation in fisheries. Bangkok, Thailand, 4–8 February 2002. FAO Fisheries Report, No. 672. Rome. 173 pp. FAO. 2002b. Report of the expert consultation on regional fisheries management bodies on harmonization of catch certification, La Jolla, USA, 9–11 January 2002. FAO Fisheries Report, No. 697. 22 pp. Available at: The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 66

FAO. 2003a. Strategy for improving information on the status and trends of capture fisheries. Rome. 34 pp. Available at: FAO. 2003b. International plan of action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries. Available at: FAO. 2003c. Fisheries Management 2. An Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 4, suppl. 2. 112 pp. Available at: FAO. 2003d. Report of the twenty-fifth session of the Committee on Fisheries. Rome, 24–28 February 2003. FAO Fisheries Report, No. 702. Rome. 88 pp. FAO. 2004a. Expert consultation on the interactions between sea turtles and the fisheries within an ecosystem context. Rome, Italy, 9–12 March 2004. FAO Fisheries Report, No. 738. Rome. 37 pp. Available at: FAO. 2004b. Technical Consultation on Sea Turtles Conservation and Fisheries. Bangkok, Thailand, 29 November–2 December 2004. FAO Fisheries Report, No. 765. Rome. 31 pp. Available at: FAO. 2005a. Review of the state of world marine fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 457. Rome. 233 pp. FAO. 2005b. Second Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee of the FAO Project Management of Tuna Fishing Capacity: Conservation and Socio-economics. W.H. Bayliff, J.I. de Leiva Moreno and J. Majkowski (eds). Madrid, Spain, 15–18 March 2004. FAO Fisheries Proceedings. No. 2. Rome. 336 pp. Available at: FAO. 2006a. Fishstat Plus. Universal software for fishery statistical series. Capture production 1950–2004. Version 2.30. Available at: . FAO. 2006b. Fisheries Global Information System (FIGIS). Available at: FAO Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit. (in press) Capture production 2004. FAO Yearbook. Fishery Statistics. Vol. 98/1. Rome, FAO. 560p. Available at: Garibaldi, L. & Grainger, R.J.R. 2004. Chronicles of catches from marine fisheries in the Eastern Central Atlantic for 1950–2000. In: P. Chavance, M. Bâ, D. Gascuel, J.M. Vakily and D. Pauly (eds). Pêcheries maritimes, écosystèmes & sociétés en Afrique de l’Ouest: Un demi-siècle de changement [Marine fisheries, ecosystems and societies in West Africa: half a century of change]. Actes du symposium international, Dakar (Sénégal), 24-28 juin 2002, pp. 99–112. Coll. Rapports de recherche halieutique ACP-UE [ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report of the European Union], no. 15. Office des publications officielles des Communautés européennes, Bruxelles. Garibaldi, L. & Limongelli, L. 2003. Trends in oceanic captures and clustering of large marine ecosystems: two studies based on the FAO capture database. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 435. Rome: FAO. 71 pp. Garcia, S.M., de Leiva Moreno, J.I. & Grainger, R. 2005. Global trends in the state of marine fisheries resources 1974–2004. In: Review of the state of world marine fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 457. Rome: FAO. 235 pp. Grainger, R.J.R. & Garcia, S.M. 1996. Chronicles of marine fishery landings (1950–1994): Trend analysis and fisheries potential. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 359. Rome: FAO. 51 pp. Gianni, M. 2004. High seas bottom trawl fisheries and their impacts on the biodiversity of vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems: options for international action. IUCN. 83 pp. Available at: Graves, J.E. & McDowell, J.R. 1995. Inter-ocean genetic divergence of istiophorid billfishes. Marine Biology, 122: 193–2003 Gulland, J. 1969. Manual of methods for fish stock asessment. Part 1. Fish population analysis. FAO Manual in Fisheries Science, No. 4: 154 pp. Gulland, J.A. 1983. Fish stock assessment. A manual of basic methods. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons, FAO/Wiley series on food and agriculture. Vol. 1: 223 pp. The state of the world highly migratory, straddling and other high seas fish stocks, and associated species 67

Hampton, J., Sibert, J.R., Kleiber, P., Maunder, M.N., & Harley, S.J. 2005. Decline of Pacific tuna populations exaggerated? Nature, 434: E1–E2. Heemstra, P.C. & Smith, M.M. 1980. Hexatrygonidae, a new family of stringrays (Myliobatiforms: ) from South Africa, with comments on the classifcation of batoid fishes, J.L.B. Smith Institute of . Ichthol. Bull., (43): 1–17. ICCAT. 2005. Report of the 2004 inter-sessional meeting of the ICCAT sub-committee on by-catches: shark stock assessment. Tokyo, Japan, 14–18 June 2004. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 58(3): 799– 890. Available at: ICES. 2005. ACFM Advice. Available at: Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 470. Rome: FAO. 131 pp. Includes a CD-ROM. Levins, R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, 15: 237–240. Meltzer, E. 2005. Global Overview of Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Conference on the governance of high seas fisheries and the United Nations Fish Agreement, St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador, 1–5 May 2005. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fgc-cgp/documents/meltzer_e.htm> Myers, R.A. & Worm, B. 2003. Rapid world-wide depletion of communities. Nature (Lond.), 423: 280–283. Nakamura, I. 1985. Billfishes of the World. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of marlins, sailfishes, spearfishes and swordfishes known to date. FAO species catalogue. Vo1.5. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, Vo1. 5. Rome: FAO. 65 pp. Ravier C. & Fromentin, J.M. 2001. Long-term fluctuations in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna population. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 58: 1299–1317. Sparre, P. & Venema, S.C. 1998. Introduction to stock assessment. Part 1. Manual. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 306.1, Rev. 2. Rome: FAO. 407 pp. Taylor, L.R., Compagno, L.J.V. & Struhsaker, P.J. 1983. Megamouth – a new species, genus and family of lamnoid shark (Megachasma pelagios, family Megachasmidae) from the Hawaiian islands. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., 43(8): 87–110. Walters, C.J. 2003. Folly and fantasy in the analysis of spatial catch rate data. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 60: 1433–1436. United Nations. 1982. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. United Nations, New York. 208 pp. Available at: United Nations. 1995. Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 6th Session, New York, 24 July– 4 August 1995. Document A/CONF.164/37, 8 September 1995. 40 pp. Available at: WHAT. 2000. Governance for a Sustainable Future. II: Fishing for the Future. World Humanity Action Trust. Report of the Commission on Fisheries, 69 pp.