Proposal of a Fishery Restricted Area:

Continental Slope of the Eastern Gulf of Lions (CoSEGoL)

Lleonart, Salat, Olivar, Puig. ICM/CSIC Barcelona, SpainMoranta. IEO, Balearic Islands, Spain

Le Corre, Sacchi. IFREMER, Sète, FranceFranquesa GEM, Faculty of Economics, U. of Barcelona, Spain

Tudela. WWF Mediterranean Programme

9th SCMEE, Antalya, Turkey. 13-16 October, 2008

Background

• What do we know about the Gulf of Lions demersal fishery?– Hake assessments

• Two countries. Four gears competing.• Hake is the target species. Other species also

important but not assessed.

• Clear growth overfishing (EMSY about 40% of current effort)

• Suspected recruitment overfishing (standing biomass less than 5% of estimated virgin biomass)

– No other assessments

Background

• What do we know about the Gulf of Lions demersal fishery?– Hake assessments

• Two countries. Four gears competing.• Hake is the target species. Other species also

important but not assessed.

• Clear growth overfishing (EMSY about 40% of current effort)

• Suspected recruitment overfishing (standing biomass less than 5% of estimated virgin biomass)

– No other assessments

Source: Stock assessment of the French-Spanish shared stock of hake (Merluccius merluccius) in the gulf of Lions. French-Spanish Working Group IFREMER-IEO Sète (France), 4-5 July 2006 Jadaud, Mellon, Farrugio, Guijarro, Valls, Massutí, Ordinas and Quetglas (SCSA 2006)

Background (contd.)• Four fleets:

– French and Spanish trawlers targeting juvenile hake

– Spanish longliners and French gillnets targeting large hake

• Despite the heavy fishing pressure on all classes and the evidences of overfishing (both growth and recruitment), historical series of catches appear to be rather stable.

• Where do the recruits come from?

Source: Stock assessment of the French-Spanish shared stock of hake (Merluccius merluccius) in the gulf of Lions. French-Spanish Working Group IFREMER-IEO Sète (France), 4-5 July 2006 Jadaud, Mellon, Farrugio, Guijarro, Valls, Massutí, Ordinas and Quetglas (SCSA 2006)

Source: Aldebert, Y., L. Recasens & J. Lleonart.- 1993. Analysis of gear interactions in a hake fishery: The case of the Gulf of Lions (NW Mediterranean). Sci. Mar., 57(2‑3):207‑217.

Other species• Bottom trawl:

– European pilchard (Sardina pilchardus) – European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) – Soles (Solea spp.) – Striped mullet (Mullus barbatus) – Red mullet (Mullus surmuletus) – Angler (Lophius piscatorius) – Black-bellied angler (Lophius budegassa) – Gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) – European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) – Seabreams (Pagellus spp.) – Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) – Poor-cod (Trisopterus minutus capelanus) – Horned octopus (Eledone cirrhosa)

• Gillnet:

– Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) – Tub gurnard (Trigla lucerna) – Poor cod (Trisopterus minutus capelanus) – Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.) – Small-spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula)

• Longline:

– Rockfish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) – Silver scabbard fish (Lepidopus caudatus) – Conger eel (Conger conger) – Red sea bream (Pagellus bogaraveo) – Fork-beard (Phycis blennoides)

Source: Stock assessment of the French-Spanish shared stock of hake (Merluccius merluccius) in the gulf of Lions. French-Spanish Working Group IFREMER-IEO Sète (France), 4-5 July 2006 Jadaud, Mellon, Farrugio, Guijarro, Valls, Massutí, Ordinas and Quetglas (SCSA 2006)

Pilot action

RAI/AP-26/2007Experimental trawl survey in the Gulf of Lions

• Executer IEO • Dates 24 Oct – 18 Dec, 2007• 67 hauls

Main species

SPECIES Rel. Abundance% In biomass

Galeus melastomus 16.42%

Micromesistius poutassou 12.92%

Lophius piscatorius 11.88%

Nephrops norvegicus 7.56%

Lepidopus caudatus 5.16%

Trachurus trachurus 5.06%

Aristeus antennatus 5.03%

Merluccius merluccius 4.44%

Helicolenus dactylopterus 3.98%

Chimaera monstrosa 3.07%

Trigla lyra 2.70%

Phycis blennoides 2.39%

SPECIESRel. Abundance% In biomass

Trachyrincus scabrus 2.23%

Capros aper 2.19%

Conger conger 1.86%

Caelorinchus caelorhincus 1.74%

Lepidorhombus boscii 1.58%

Centrophorus granulosus 1.56%

Trachurus picturatus 1.01%

Lophius budegassa 0.55%

Pagellus bogaraveo 0.16%

Palinurus mauritanicus 0.06%

Mullus surmuletus 0.01%

Parapenaeus longirostris 0.01%

Eledone cirrhosa 0.01%

GFCM priority species

SPECIES Rel. Abundance% In biomass

Galeus melastomus 16.42%

Micromesistius poutassou 12.92%

Lophius piscatorius 11.88%

Nephrops norvegicus 7.56%

Lepidopus caudatus 5.16%

Trachurus trachurus 5.06%

Aristeus antennatus 5.03%

Merluccius merluccius 4.44%

Helicolenus dactylopterus 3.98%

Chimaera monstrosa 3.07%

Trigla lyra 2.70%

Phycis blennoides 2.39%

SPECIESRel. Abundance% In biomass

Trachyrincus scabrus 2.23%

Capros aper 2.19%

Conger conger 1.86%

Caelorinchus caelorhincus 1.74%

Lepidorhombus boscii 1.58%

Centrophorus granulosus 1.56%

Trachurus picturatus 1.01%

Lophius budegassa 0.55%

Pagellus bogaraveo 0.16%

Palinurus mauritanicus 0.06%

Mullus surmuletus 0.01%

Parapenaeus longirostris 0.01%

Eledone cirrhosa 0.01%

Lophius piscatorius

Aristeus antennatus

Nephrops norvegicus

Merluccius merluccius

What is the problem?

A zoneSlightly exploited

With a mature demersal community

A refugium of significant biomass of large spawners …

…. of species of commercial interest …

…. likely supplying recruits to the nearby fishery

Is in danger of being exploited

Area definition

A B

C D

36.177.5D

43.249.5C

19.885.0B

24.160.4A

To FranceTo Spain

36.177.5D

43.249.5C

19.885.0B

24.160.4A

To FranceTo Spain

A 43º00’N 4º20’E

B 43º00’N 5º00’E

C 42º40’N 4º20’E

D 42º40’N 5º00’E

Depths: 100 – 1500 m

Surface 598 n miles2

2 051 km2

205 100 ha

Distance to the coast (in NM)

4374Nile delta cold hydrocarbon seeps

10295Eratosthenes Seamount

976Santa Maria di Leuca

4374Nile delta cold hydrocarbon seeps

10295Eratosthenes Seamount

976Santa Maria di Leuca

Comparative surface with the approved FRAs (in km2)

20 N

M< ~ 30 NM

Gran

d R

hô

ne

Petit R

hô

ne

Marti

Objective

To protect this zone, in order to conserve:– A demersal community that is currently only

slightly exploited– Populations of spawners and “mega spawners”

of some species of commercial interest– Biotic and abiotic habitats where these

communities live– Trophic webs

Justification

• Protect juveniles or spawners?– Equilibrium between the two Caddy’s

paradigms– The three Froese’s “simple indicators”

Caddy’s paradigms

Source: Caddy, J.F. 1990. Options for the regulation of Mediterranean demersal fisheries. Natural Resource Modeling, 4: 427–475.

Source: Froese R.- 2004 Keep it simple: three indicators to deal with overfishing. Fish and Fisheries. 2004, 5, 86-91

The Froese’s“three simple indicators”

• Let them spawn

• Let them grow

• Let the mega-spawners live

Source: Froese R.- 2004 Keep it simple: three indicators to deal with overfishing. Fish and Fisheries. 2004, 5, 86-91

Why mega spawners?

• large females are much more fecund because the number of eggs increases exponentially with length in most species; their eggs also tend to be larger, thus giving a greater chance of survival to larvae

• reaching old age is usually a sign of overall individual fitness and thus these mega-spawners are reservoirs and distributors of desirable genes; and

• extending longevity and prolonging the reproductive phase can be viewed as a natural safeguard against subsequent recruitment failure

Source: Froese R.- 2004 Keep it simple: three indicators to deal with overfishing. Fish and Fisheries. 2004, 5, 86-91

JustificationEffect of protecting the spawners in the proposed FRA on coastal fishing (system of currents in the G of L)

– Supply of recruits of main target species: • Merluccius merluccius, • Lophius piscatorius, • Nephrops norvegiculs, • Aristeus antennatus

– Conserving accompanying species (maintaining the trophic web)

• Micromesistius poutassou• Lepidopus caudatus

Currents in the Gulf of Lions

Justification

• In accordance with EAF, a total protection of the demersal environment will maintain:– Biotic and abiotic habitats – Trophic webs

Consequences of the protection

• Since the area is currently only slightly exploited, fishermen would not lose catch (both short and long term). This represents the status quo strategy.

• Ensure the protection and thus, persistence of spawning stocks

• The community of large spawners is under risk of being rapidly exploited as soon as fishermen are able reach it easily and legally

• Very high risk of increase of recruitment overfishing affecting the subregional fishery with danger of collapse of several very valuable species

• A few fishermen would get huge short term gains, but the whole fishery would be at stake at medium and long term periods

Consequences of no protection

Legal statusInternational waters: outside of the Spanish fishing protected area (1997)

Distance of point C (42º40’N 4º20’E) to the Spanish coast: 49.5 NM, to the French coast : 43.2 NM

Legal statusInside of the French “zone de protection écologique”

Management measures proposed

Prohibit any kind of demersal fishing, towed or not, including trawl gears, bottom and midwater longlines, bottom nets (gillnets, trammelnets), traps, etc.