___________________________________________________________________________

2009/FWG/WKSP/005

Towards an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries

Management in Peru

Submitted by: Peru

Workshop on Implementing Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries in the Context of the

Broader Marine EnvironmentVancouver, Canada

28-29 May 2009

TOWARDS AN ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN PERU

Background, current situation and perspectives

Biol. Erich DíazPelagic-Neritic and Oceanic Resources

Peruvian Marine Research Institute (IMARPE)

HUMBOLDTC

UR

REN

TLM

E

NHCE

1,1 million km2

~ 0,1%7,4 million t

~ 10%

more fish per unit area 2nd marine capture producerthe largest single-fishery

Why EAF?

In Peru, fishing is the largest extractive use of the marine ecosystem

PERU: top fishing country

PERU: other fisheries statisticsemployment direct: 130 000 / indirect: 50 0000,5% GDPexport values USD 2,4 billions

PELAGIC FISHERY (PURSE SEINE)– Anchovy 4,0 – 8,0 millions t– Horse mackerel 0,5 – 1,5 millions t– Chub mackerel 0,3 – 0,5 millions t– Sardine < 50 thousands t

JUMBO SQUID FISHERY (JIG GEAR)– Jumbo squid 50 - 300 thousands t

DEMERSAL FISHERY (BOTTOM TRAWL)– Peruvian hake 20 - 100 thousands t– Other demersal 10 - 30 thousands t

ARTISANAL FISHERY (DIVERSE GEARS)– Fish (coastal fish) 20 - 100 thousands t– Invertebrates (shellfish) 30 - 50 thousands t

Fisheries characteristics DIVERSE

Fisheries characteristics LARGE CLIMATE VARIABILITY

Mid-term variability:“El Niño” & “La Niña”

pendulum

Long-term variability:Warm “El Viejo” &

Cold “La Vieja”

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1950

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

Scallop Shrimp Squid Shell Crabs Clams Wedge clam False abalone Octopus Lobster Other Jumbo squid

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1950

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Striped mullet Lorna drum Silverside Cabinza Grunt Morw ong Corvina drum Grunt Menhaden Palm ruff

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1950

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Smoothhound Banded croaker Weakfish Rock seabass Eagle ray Bighead tilef ish

Fine flounder Grape eye seabass Hammerhead Hake Searobins

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000

1950

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

14000000

Jack Mackerel Mackerel Bonito White anchovy Skipjack Tuna Mahi mahi Sharks Snake Mackerel Anchoveta Sardine

Demersal

CoastalInvertebrates

Pelagic

Landings …

Fisheries characteristics LARGE CLIMATE VARIABILITY

1992 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

1992 Convention on Biological Diversity

1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

1995 Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity

2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development

2005 Bali Plan of Action

In the same line with …

from Caddy and Mahon (1995)

from Jarre (1998)

from FAO (2004)

We recognize the complexity of the problem

from FAO (2005)

EAF as a tool to cope with the complexities of fisheries vs the sustainability of the marine ecosystem

EAF: What have we done?:

formation of an IMARPE EAF WG:introduce concept, objectives, principles and procedures of the EAFdiagnosis of statebackground revision on ecosystem-based science

contact with other WG:EAF indicators (Indiseas) WG (Euroceans / SCOR)Decision Support Tools for an EAF WG (U of Cape Town / IRD)

applications:2008 International panel of experts on assessment of Peruvian hake

EAF: What have we done?:

formation of an IMARPE EAF WG:introduce concept, objectives, principles and procedures of the EAFdiagnosis of statebackground revision on ecosystem-based science

contact with other WG:EAF indicators (Indiseas) WG (Euroceans / SCOR)Decision Support Tools for an EAF WG (U of Cape Town / IRD)

applications:2008 International panel of experts on assessment of Peruvian hake

Identify broad objectives relevant to the fishery in question

Break these objectives down into smaller priority issues that can be addressed by

management measures

Set operational objectives

Develop indicators and reference points

Develop decision rules on how the management

measures are to be applied

Monitor and evaluate performance

High level policy goals

EAF implementation process (FAO, 2005)

EAF: What have we done?: IMARPE EAF WG:legal diagnosis

Political Constitution of Peru:Art. 67 Estate is encouraged to promote a sustainable use of natural resources …

General Law of Fishing:Art. 1 To elaborate management plans able to reconcile the principle of sustainability with social and economic benefits …

Identify broad objectives relevant to the fishery in question

Break these objectives down into smaller priority issues that can be addressed by

management measures

Set operational objectives

Develop indicators and reference points

Develop decision rules on how the management

measures are to be applied

Monitor and evaluate performance

High level policy goals

EAF implementation process (FAO, 2005)

EAF: What have we done?:

Management Plans:MP Giant squid MP Tunas and related speciesMP Horse mackerel and Chub mackerelMP CodMP Hake

eg. MP Hake: 3.1. “To achieve a sustainable exploitation of hake and its bycatch…”

IMARPE EAF WG:legal diagnosis

Identify broad objectives relevant to the fishery in question

Break these objectives down into smaller priority issues that can be addressed by

management measures

Set operational objectives

Develop indicators and reference points

Develop decision rules on how the management

measures are to be applied

Monitor and evaluate performance

High level policy goals

EAF implementation process (FAO, 2005)

EAF: What have we done?:

7.4, 7.8) % juveniles, ML, % Bycatch

IMARPE EAF WG:legal diagnosis

Identify broad objectives relevant to the fishery in question

Break these objectives down into smaller priority issues that can be addressed by

management measures

Set operational objectives

Develop indicators and reference points

Develop decision rules on how the management

measures are to be applied

Monitor and evaluate performance

High level policy goals

EAF implementation process (FAO, 2005)

EAF: What have we done?:

6.18., 7.11., 11.2) 10 % Bycatch = Close season

IMARPE EAF WG:legal diagnosis

Identify broad objectives relevant to the fishery in question

Break these objectives down into smaller priority issues that can be addressed by

management measures

Set operational objectives

Develop indicators and reference points

Develop decision rules on how the management

measures are to be applied

Monitor and evaluate performance

High level policy goals

EAF implementation process (FAO, 2005)

EAF: What have we done?:

Experts panels

IMARPE EAF WG:legal diagnosis

EAF: What have we done?: IMARPE EAF WG:revision on ecosystem-based science

EAF: What have we done?: IMARPE EAF WG:revision on ecosystem-based science

The Northern Humboldt Current System:

Ocean dynamics, Ecosystem Processes

and Fisheries

Vol. 79, N° 2-4, Oct/Dec 2008

available in PDF

EAF: What have we done?:

formation of an IMARPE EAF WG:introduce concept, objectives, principles and procedures of the EAFdiagnosis of statebackground revision on ecosystem-based science

contact with other WG:EAF indicators (Indiseas) WG (Euroceans / SCOR)Decision Support Tools for an EAF WG (U of Cape Town / IRD)

applications:International panel of experts on assessment of Peruvian hake

EAF: What have we done?: CONTACT WITH OTHER WG

EAF indicators (Indiseas) WG (Euroceans / SCOR):1983 – 2008 time series of fish community indicators: TL, life span

IMARPE indicators:environment: ENSO, productivity, habitat, etc.planktontop predators: birds, mammals

EAF: What have we done?: time series of indicators

Phytoplankton ZooplanktonFish Biomass

Birds Mammals Human

Salinity T° Oxigen

EAF: What have we done?:

Decision Support Tools for an EAF WG (U of Cape Town / IRD):development of multi-criteria decision techniques (modelling) to

support holistic management approaches

from Jarre et al., 2006

CONTACT WITH OTHER WG

EAF: What have we done?:

formation of an IMARPE EAF WG:introduce concept, objectives, principles and procedures of the EAFdiagnosis of statebackground revision on ecosystem-based science

contact with other WG:EAF indicators (Indiseas) WG (Euroceans / SCOR)Decision Support Tools for an EAF WG (U of Cape Town / IRD)

applications:2008 International panel of experts on assessment of Peruvian hake

EAF: What have we done?:

Ministry of Fisheries, scientists, stakeholders, fishermen, etc.Hake was analyzed in a broader context: the ecosystem

APPLICATION

2008 International Panel of Experts on the Assessment of Peruvian hake (Merluccius gayi peruanus)

EAF: What have we done?:

Economic: to optimize net benefits of every fish caught, quality instead of quantity

Productivity: demersal sub-system under unfavorable environmental regime

Stock assessment: low level abundance

Ecosystem modelling: dynamics of hake responds more to trophic effects and fishing pressure

Legal: General Law of Fishing and MP to be updated under the ecosystem approach and be more explicit

2008 International Panel of Experts on the Assessment of Peruvian hake (Merluccius gayi peruanus)

Outputs:

APPLICATION

“Hake can not be exploited at the same level as past decades”

EAF: What have we done?: APPLICATION

2008 International Panel of Experts on the Assessment of Peruvian hake (Merluccius gayi peruanus)

Discouraged expectative of an increased fleet size and TAC

Now stakeholders take part to the Management process(Hake Commission)

To provide Management Plans Guidelines under the ecosystem approach

EAF: What are we aiming to?

“Ecosystem approach to Fisheries Management in Peru”Project submitted to the Ministry of Fisheries:

To introduce the concept, objectives and principles of the EAF to the entire fishing sector: managers, scientists, stakeholders, fishermen, ship owners, etc.

To achieve agreement and a work plan to a progressive implementation of the EAF

EAF: What are we aiming to?

“Ecosystem approach to Fisheries Management in Peru”Project submitted to the Ministry of Fisheries:

1. To introduce the EAF to the fishing sector agreement / work plan

2. Identification of broad objectives, priority issues and operational objectives of a study case fishery

3. Development of indicators, reference points and decision rules

4. Presentation of results guidelines to be included in the case study Management Plan

CONCLUSIONS

The fishing legislation has the structure and mechanisms but we still need to work on the guidelines.

Peru has a good history in ecosystem-based science and this should be the base to formulate this guidelines.

We have not integrated social and economic science to fisheries yet.

IMARPE is leading this initiative but it should be an integrated work of the entire fishing sector.

We have the scientific, legal and institutional bases to implement the EAF it is perfectly feasible to implement this approach.

MANY THANKS¡