Octopus vulgaris Octopus maya...During the day, octopuses are often burrowed in dens, and at night...

and

Common octopus, Red octopus

Octopus vulgaris, Octopus maya

Image ©Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook/www.scandfish.com

Mexico

Handline February 19, 2015

The Safina Center Seafood Analysts

2

About The Safina Center The Safina Center (formerly Blue Ocean Institute) translates scientific information into language people can understand and serves as a unique voice of hope, guidance, and encouragement. The Safina Center (TSC) works through science, art, and literature to inspire solutions and a deeper connection with nature, especially the sea. Our mission is to inspire more people to actively engage as well-informed and highly motivated constituents for conservation. Led by conservation pioneer and MacArthur fellow, Dr. Carl Safina, we show how nature, community, the economy and prospects for peace are all intertwined. Through Safina’s books, essays, public speaking, PBS television series, our Fellows program and Sustainable Seafood program, we seek to inspire people to make better choices. The Safina Center was founded in 2003 by Dr. Carl Safina and was built on three decades of research, writing and policy work by Dr. Safina. The Safina Center’s Sustainable Seafood Program The Center’s founders created the first seafood guide in 1998. Our online seafood guide now encompasses over 160-wild-caught species. All peer-reviewed seafood reports are transparent, authoritative, easy to understand and use. Seafood ratings and full reports are available on our website under Seafood Choices. TSC’s Sustainable Seafood Program helps consumers, retailers, chefs and health professionals discover the connection between human health, a healthy ocean, fishing and sustainable seafood.

• Our online guide to sustainable seafood is based on scientific ratings for more than 160 wild-caught seafood species and provides simple guidelines. Through our expanded partnership with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, our guide now includes seafood ratings from both The Safina Center and the Seafood Watch® program.

• We partner with Whole Foods Market (WFM) to help educate their seafood suppliers and staff, and provide our scientific seafood ratings for WFM stores in the US and UK.

• Through our partnership with Chefs Collaborative, we created Green Chefs/Blue Ocean, a free, interactive, online sustainable seafood course for chefs and culinary professionals.

• Our website features tutorials, videos, blogs, links and discussions of the key issues such as mercury in seafood, bycatch, overfishing, etc.

Check out our Fellows Program, learn more about our Sustainable Seafood Program and Carl Safina’s current work at www.safinacenter.org . The Safina Center is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization based in the School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University, Long Island, NY. www.safinacenter.org [email protected] | 631.632.3763

http://www.safinacenter.org/seafoods

http://safinacenter.org/programs/sustainable-seafood-program/green-chefsblue-ocean-online-course/

http://livepage.apple.com/

http://www.safinacenter.org/

http://www.safinacenter.org/

mailto:[email protected]

3

About Seafood Watch® Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

Disclaimer Seafood Watch and The Safina Center strive to ensure that all our Seafood Reports and recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at the time of publication. All our reports are peer-reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or of The Safina Center or their recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch and The Safina Center are solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and other funders.

4

Guiding Principles The Safina Center and Seafood Watch define sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Based on this principle, Seafood Watch and the Safina Center have developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wild-catch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

• How does fishing affect the species under assessment? • How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species? • How effective is the fishery’s management? • How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

• Factors to evaluate and score • Guidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and the Safina Center’s online guide: Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife. Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught. Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.

5

Summary This report evaluates the sustainability of the common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) and red octopus (Octopus maya) fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico. In this fishery, red octopus accounts for around two-thirds of the catch and common octopus one-third. The common octopus is globally distributed and caught worldwide, while the red octopus is endemic to Mexico. Octopuses are short-lived and fast-growing animals. Abundance of the red octopus has fluctuated and most recently declined. Catches of red octopus have been above the established catch limits set for this species for most years since the mid-2000s, so there is concern that fishing levels on this species are too high. There have been no population assessments for common octopus, so abundance and fishing levels are unknown. In Mexico, fishermen catch common and red octopuses with baited lines that are attached to poles, called “jimba.” This fishing method catches almost exclusively octopuses, so there are no bycatch concerns. The impact on species used for bait in the fishery (e.g., crab) is unknown. The limiting species in the fishery is the red octopus. The fishing method has very low impacts on bottom habitats. Mexico has several management strategies in place to protect the common and red octopuses, such as size limits, a closed season, and catch limits, but enforcement of regulations has been weak and some illegal fishing is known to occur. Due to concerns about high fishing levels on red octopus and the lack of enforcement of management regulations, common octopus and red octopus from Mexico are rated “red” or “avoid.” Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations

Species / Fishery

Criterion 1 Impacts on the Species

Under Assessment

Criterion 2 Impacts on

other Species

Criterion 3 Management Effectiveness

Criterion 4 Impacts on Habitat and Ecosystem

Overall Recommendation

Common octopus Mexico Gulf of Mexico -

Handline Yellow (2.64) Red (1.65) Red (2.00) Green (3.57) Red/Avoid (2.361)

Red octopus Mexico Gulf of Mexico -

Handline Red (1.73) Yellow (2.51) Red (2.00) Green (3.57) Red/Avoid (2.361)

6

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

• Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores

• Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern,2 and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical scores, and does not meet the criteria for Best Choice (above)

• Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern,2 or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

2 Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

7

Table of Contents About The Safina Center ............................................................................................................................... 2

About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................................. 3

Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................................... 4

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 8

Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 12

Criterion 1 Impacts on the Species Under Assessment………………………………………………………………………12

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species .................................................................................................... 21

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ................................................................................................. 23

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem................................................................................ 31

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 35

References .................................................................................................................................................. 36

8

Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation This report evaluates the sustainability of the common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) and red octopus (Octopus maya) fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico.

Overview of the species and management bodies The common and red octopuses live in similar benthic habitats, typically consisting of rocky bottoms, seagrass, or coral reefs (Vaz-Pires et al. 2004) (Sweeting et al. 2006). The red octopus looks very similar to the common octopus and wasn’t recognized as a separate species until the late 1960s. The common octopus is globally distributed and can be found in depths up to 400 m, but is most abundant below 100 m (SAGARPA 2014a). The red octopus is endemic to the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico and prefers shallow habitats from 0–60 m in depth (Voss and Solis Ramirez 1966) (Vaz-Pires et al. 2004). During the day, octopuses are often burrowed in dens, and at night are mobile and hunting for food (Mather and O'Dor 1991). Studies show that common octopus frequently (i.e., every few nights) move short distances (10–100 km) for feeding or breeding (Semmens et al. 2007). Octopuses are not migratory animals and home ranges for both species of octopuses are small. They have short life cycles. Growth is contingent on food quantity, food quality, and environmental conditions. Environmental conditions also play a role in catches (Perez Sanchez et al. 2010). In Mexico, common and red octopuses are fished using “jimbas” or wooden poles that have several hanging baited lines attached (typically six or seven). The lines are baited with crabs or fish. Commercial fleets consist of two types of vessels: artisanal (5–9 m) and medium-sized (12–22 m) (Sweeting et al. 2006) (SAGARPA 2014a). The smaller artisanal vessels fish depths from 0–30 m and the medium sized vessels fish deeper, predominately 18–60 m (SAGARPA 2014a). The artisanal fishery is larger and primarily targets red octopus, while the medium-size fleet captures both common octopus and red octopus (Salas et al. 2009). Fishing trips are restricted for artisanal vessels to 1–3 days and a storage capacity of 0.5 tons (t), and to 15 days and 5–15 t for medium-sized vessels (SAGARPA 2014a). The octopus fishery is managed by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA) and the National Commission of Aquaculture and Fishing (CONAPESCA) (FAO 2005) (OECD 2006). There are various other organizations and stakeholders that contribute to the management of the octopus resource.

9

Figure 1: Schematic of the fishing method used to catch octopus in the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico. Graphic from (SAGARPA 2014). Production Statistics The common and red octopuses are mainly fished off the Yucatan Peninsula, with the states of Campeche and Yucatan dominating the fishery. Much smaller catches occur in the states of Quintana Roo and Veracruz. Since the late 1990s, annual catches have ranged from 14,000 t to 25,000 metric tons (28–50 million lbs) (SAGARPA 2014a). In recent years, red octopus has accounted for around two-thirds of the catch and common octopus one-third (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008) (SAGARPA 2014b). The octopus fishery is the ninth-largest fishery by production in Mexico and ranks fifth in commercial value (Lasseter 2006) (SAGARPA 2007) (SAGARPA 2014a). Approximately 20,000 people are employed through this fishery and 5,094 vessels participate (SAGARPA 2012a).

10

Figure 2: Catches of red octopus (O. maya) and common octopus (O. vulgaris) in the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico (1980–2013)

Figure 3: Annual catches of octopus in Campeche and Yucatan. Figure from (SAGARPA 2014).

11

Figure 4: Annual catches of octopus in Veracruz and Quintana Roo. Figure from (SAGARPA 2014).

Importance to the U.S./North American market The top five nations exporting octopus to the United States are Spain (23%), China (19%), Philippines (18%), Indonesia (10%), and Thailand (7%) (NMFS 2014). Mexico ranks in the top 10 octopus exporters to the United States, making up about 4% of the market (NMFS 2014). U.S. imports of octopus from Mexico have been steadily increasing, with nearly 668 t (1.47 million lbs) imported in 2013 (NMFS 2014). The United States imports live, frozen, and dried/brined octopus from Mexico (NMFS 2014). The database documenting U.S. imports does not differentiate between species or between frozen, dried, or brined octopus, so it is difficult to determine how much of each species is imported. Six species of octopus are fished in Mexico: O. vulgaris, O. maya, O. hubbsorum, O. macropus, O. bimaculatus, and O. rubescens, with the red octopus and common octopus making up the overwhelming majority of the catches (GBC group 2014). Since red octopus is endemic to Mexico, all of that product available in the United States is imported from Mexico. Common octopus are globally distributed and each year about 40,000 t (88,000,000 lbs) are caught worldwide (Guerra et al. 2010) (FAO 2014a). Mexico and several European countries account for the majority of the common octopus catches (FAO 2014b). Common and market names Octopus vulgaris: common octopus Octopus maya: red octopus, Mexican four-eyed octopus Primary product forms Octopus is typically sold fresh or frozen and occasionally dried/cured. Fresh octopus has a very short shelf life of approximately 1 week from catch, but frozen lasts longer (Vaz-Pires et al. 2004).

12

Assessment This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries, available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment

This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.

Criterion 1 Summary

COMMON OCTOPUS Region / Method Factor 1.1

Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 1.2 Abundance

Factor 1.3 Fishing Mortality

Criteria 1 Score

Mexico Gulf of Mexico Handline

Low 3.00:Moderate Concern

2.33:Moderate Concern

Yellow (2.644)

RED OCTOPUS Region / Method Factor 1.1




Criteria 1 Score


Low 3.00:Moderate Concern

1.00:High Concern

Red (1.732)

13

Criterion 1 Assessment

COMMON OCTOPUS

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines

• Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing (

• Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain).

• High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.

Mexico Gulf of Mexico, Handline

Low

All octopuses are short-lived and fast-growing animals. Common octopus typically lives 2 years and it reaches sexual maturity within the first year (Mather and O’Dor 1991). Males are larger than females, and size (length and weight) can vary depending on environmental conditions (water temperature, salinity, food availability, etc.) (Guerra et al. 2010). Males can grow to a maximum total length of 1.3 m (51 in) and females to 1.2 m (47 in) (Gillespie et al. 1998)(FAO 2014a). Adult common octopus frequently weigh 3 kg (6.6 lbs), but they can weigh up to 10 kg (22 lbs) (Gillespie et al. 1998) (Silva et al. 2002) (FAO 2014a). Female common octopus can lay 100,000 to 600,000 eggs (Silva et al. 2002) (Vaz-Pires et al. 2004) (FAO 2014a). Eggs are laid on the roof of caves, dens, or under structures (rocks, shells, etc.) and protected by females (Gillespie et al. 1998). It is common for females to die shortly after brooding; however, some females will lay more than one clutch of eggs. Given these life history characteristics, common octopus is considered to have a “low” vulnerability to fishing.

Rationale:

14

Rationale: Table 1: Results from Seafood Watch invertebrate vulnerability rubric for octopus (SFW criteria document, pg. 4). Attribute scores can range from 1 to 3 with higher scores signifying more resilient life history attributes. Species with average attribute scores between 2.46 and 3 are deemed to have a ‘low vulnerability'.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.

• 4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished

• 3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing.

• 2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.


Moderate Concern

The abundance of common octopus in Mexico is unknown, but likely fluctuates annually, depending on environmental conditions and offspring survival (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008). Currently, abundance surveys are not conducted for common octopus, but in 2013 this was defined as a research priority, along with additional research to better understand population dynamics of this species in Mexico (SAGARPA 2014a). Since abundance of common octopus is unknown and the species has a low vulnerability to fishing, this factor is scored as “moderate concern”.

15

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).

• 3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).

• 2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place.

• 1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.

• 0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing.


Moderate Concern

The fishing mortality on common octopus is unknown because a population assessment has not been performed on the species (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008). Annual assessments are undertaken to determine sustainable catch quotas for the red octopus but not common octopus (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008). Although red octopus previously dominated the catch, in recent years the catch of common octopus has increased and accounted for a larger proportion of the total octopus catch (Arreguin-Sanchez 2000) (Arreguin-Sanchez et al. 2000) (SAGARPA 2004) (Sweeting et al. 2006) (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008) (SAGARPA 2014b). Common octopus can be found in water exceeding 100 m but in Mexico it is only fished in depths up to 60 m. Some suggest that the species is under-exploited because of the shallow fishing and that there is potential for increased exploitation in deeper water (SAGARPA 2012a) (Salas et al. 2011). However, due to the lack of information on sustainable fishing limits for this species, fishing mortality is scored as “moderate concern”.

16

RED OCTOPUS

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Scoring Guidelines

• Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing (

• Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain).

• High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator).

Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range.


Low

Like most octopuses, red octopus is a fast-growing and short-lived animal. Its average lifespan is one reproductive cycle, which generally does not exceed 1.5 years (Arreguin-Sanchez et al. 2000). It sexually matures in 5–9 months and produces fewer (500–3,000) but larger eggs than many octopuses (Voss and Solis Ramirez 1966) (Van Heukelem 1976) (Gillespie et al. 1998) (GBC group 2014)(SAGARPA 2014a). Females lay and care for their eggs inside caves (Arreguin-Sanchez et al. 2000). Red octopus offspring are unique in that they do not experience a larval phase, but instead hatch and immediately become benthic predators (Voss and Solis Ramirez 1966). Red octopus can grow to maximum size of 3.2 kg, with males growing larger than females (Van Heukelem 1976). Given these life-history characteristics, red octopus is considered to have a “low” vulnerability to fishing.

Rationale: Table 1: Results from Seafood Watch invertebrate vulnerability rubric for octopus (SFW criteria document, pg. 4). Attribute scores can range from 1 to 3 with higher scores signifying more resilient life history attributes. Species with average attribute scores between 2.46 and 3 are deemed to have a ‘low vulnerability'.

17

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.

• 4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished

• 3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing.

• 2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.


Moderate Concern

Data from scientific underwater surveys and catch data have been used to estimate the abundance of red octopus since 2001. Abundance of red octopus varies annually and is largely driven by offspring survival (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008). Abundance has fluctuated between 16,000 t and 27,000 t from 2001 to 2012 (SAGARPA 2013) (SAGARPA 2014a). In 2012, abundance was estimated to be just over 19,000 t (Santos Valencia et al. 2012). However, the abundance estimates after the end of the 2012 fishing season were the lowest in the analyzed period, which might be because catches in 2012 greatly exceeded the established sustainable catch limit or quota (SAGARPA 2013). Abundance in 2013 remained below average (SAGARPA 2014b). Currently, the limit abundance reference point for red octopus is an average density of 1,850 individuals per hectare at the beginning of the fishing season, and abundance has varied around this level. Abundance conservation goals based on maximum sustainable yield have not been determined (SAGARPA 2014a). It is currently unclear whether the red octopus is overfished or depleted. Since the status of red octopus is uncertain, and the species has a low inherent vulnerability to fishing, this factor is rated as “moderate concern”.

18

Rationale: Estimates of red octopus biomass and number of recruits (new fish entering the population) are important factors in describing the population and its sustainability.

Figure 5: Temporal red octopus biomass trends for ages fully recruited to the fishery (a) and number of recruits (=new fish entering the population) (b) over seven fishing seasons. The thick dashed horizontal lines represent the average biomass or recruitment and the thinner dashed lines the 95% confidence intervals. Figure is moderately adapted from SAGARPA 2014b.

19

Figure 6: Observed red octopus biomass and estimated biomass using a mathematical model for 2002-2012. Figure is moderately adapted from SAGARPA 2013.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).

• 3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).

• 2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place.

• 1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.

• 0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing.

20


High Concern

Each year a catch limit or quota is determined for red octopus based on adult abundance, recruitment (new animals entering the population), and growth data estimates (SAGARPA 2007) (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008) (Santos Valencia et al. 2012) (SAGARPA 2014a). Catch quotas are typically set at the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), a level of fishing that allows the population to persist. The goal is to allow 50% of the population to escape the fishery and survive to reproduce (SAGARPA 2014a). Managers and some research studies have indicated that fishing on red octopus is occurring near MSY or that the fishery is fully exploited (SAGARPA 2012a) (Hernández-Sánchez and Jesús-Navarrete 2010). However, other research has suggested that fishing levels may be above MSY and the fishery over-exploited (Arreguin-Sanchez et al. 2000) (Perez Sanchez et al. 2010) (SAGARPA 2013). Since the red octopus is endemic to the Yucatan Peninsula and prefers shallow habitats, it is likely to be much more vulnerable to over-exploitation than the common octopus. Since 2006, the catch quotas for red octopus have been exceeded in all years except 2008. In 2012 the catch quota was exceeded by 68% and in 2013 by 30% (SAGARPA 2014b). Another issue is that the small-scale fleet catches high numbers of undersized red octopus, which may be negatively affecting the population (Salas et al. 2009) (Abunader et al. 2013). Due to concern about the status of red octopus, scientists have recommended setting catch quotas below the maximum sustainable yield/catch and monitoring catches to ensure they do not exceed the quota (SAGARPA 2013). Currently, the estimated maximum sustainable yield/catch is 12,000 t, but the recommended catch level is 10,000 t (SAGARPA 2014b). Because catches in recent years have exceeded sustainable catch limits, we have awarded a “high concern” score.

Rationale: Table 2: Annual catch quotas and reported catches for red octopus in Mexico for fishing seasons 2002-2013. Table is moderately adapted from SAGARPA 2014b.

21

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:


Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.

Criterion 2 Summary

Common octopus Region / Method Factors 2.1-2.3

Lowest Scoring of Other Species

Lowest Species Subscore

Factor 2.4 Discard Rate Modifying Score ((Discards+ Bait)/Retained Catch)

Criterion 2 Score


Red Octopus 1.732 0.95 (20-40%) Red (1.645)

Red octopus Region / Method Factors 2.1-2.3

Lowest Scoring of Other Species

Lowest Species Subscore

Factor 2.4 Discard Rate Modifying Score ((Discards+ Bait)/Retained Catch)

Criterion 2 Score


Common Octopus 2.644 0.95 (20-40%) Yellow (2.512)

The fishing method for octopus is reported to catch octopus almost exclusively (SAGARPA 2014a). Therefore, no other species are assessed under Criterion 2. However, fishermen do use live crabs (primarily blue crab, Callinectes sp.; spider crab, Libinia sp.; or stone crab, Menippe mercenaria) and fish heads (perch and grunts) to bait their fishing lines (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008) (Salas et al. 2008) (SAGARPA 2014a). Bait is sourced frozen or caught directly via diving; in some cases, the woman’s

22

fishing cooperative is responsible for catching the crab (Lasseter 2006) (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008). It is unclear how much bait is used in this fishery, and the potential impact on these bait species is also unclear (SAGARPA 2014). There is a human-consumption fishery for blue crab (Callinectes sp.) and the Mexican government lists these species as fully exploited (SAGARPA 2012). The limiting species in the octopus fishery is the red octopus due to concerns about high fishing levels on this species (see Criterion 1 evaluations).

Criterion 2 Assessment See Criterion 1 for assessments of common octopus and red octopus. ALL SPECIES Factor 2.4 – Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use Scoring Guidelines The discard rate is the sum of all dead discards (i.e. non-retained catch) plus bait use divided by the total retained catch.

Ratio of bait + discards/landings Factor 2.4 score <20% 1 20-40% 0.95 40-60% 0.9 60-80% 0.85 80-100% 0.8 >100% 0.75

Mexico/Gulf of Mexico, Handline

20-40%

Information on discards (non-retained catches) is not available for the octopus fishery, but the fishery catches octopus almost exclusively (SAGARPA 2014a). Some discards of undersized octopus likely occur. The catch of undersized octopus is most common early in the fishing season (August) and in shallow waters where the small artisanal boats operate (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008). Given the fishing method, it is expected that many undersized octopus that are discarded back to the sea survive (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). Fishermen use live crabs and fish heads to bait their fishing lines (Arreguin-Sanchez 1992) (Arreguin-Sanchez et al. 2000) (Lasseter 2006) (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008) (SAGARPA 2014a). Bait is sourced frozen or caught directly via diving; in some cases, the woman’s fishing cooperative is responsible for

23

catching the crab (Lasseter 2006) (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008). It is unclear how much bait is used in this fishery. Although dead discards are likely <20% of the retained catch, discards plus bait use is scored as 20%–40% of the retained catch to account for an unknown amount of bait use.

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).

The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is determined as follows:

• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy

(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical.

Criterion 3 Summary

Region / Method Factor 3.1 Harvest Strategy

Factor 3.1 Bycatch Strategy

Criteria 3 Score


2.000 All Species Retained

Red(2.000)

Mexico is working to improve management of the octopus fishery, but management remains relatively poor. Though several regulations have been established to protect octopus, enforcement of regulations is weak, and non-compliance by fishers is known to be a problem. Bycatch management was not evaluated because the fishery is reported to exclusively catch octopus.

24

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Scoring Guidelines

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scientific Research/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered. • 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly

effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management

Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘ineffective.’

• 0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.

Factor 3.1 Summary

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy Region / Method

Management Strategy and Impl.

Recovery of Species of Concern

Scientific Research & Monitoring

Record of Following Scientific Advice

Enforcement of Regs.

Track Record

Stakeholder Inclusion

Factor 3.1 Score


Moderately Effective

N/A Moderately Effective


Ineffective Moderately Effective


2:00 High Concern

Factor 3.1 Assessment Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a

25

highly effective rating, there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.



Management strategies in place for the octopus fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico are primarily based on scientific information collected on the red octopus resource. Little scientific information is collected on the common octopus. Regulations in place include fishing licenses, a minimum size limit of 110 cm (to allow most octopus to breed or reproduce before they are caught), a closed season from December 16–July 31, a prohibition on catching octopus by diving, and yearly catch limits or quotas for red octopus (OECD 2006) (SAGARPA 2007) (Perez Sanchez et al. 2010) (SAGARPA 2014a). Catch quotas for red octopus are set each year based on population assessments of the species and are designed to allow 50% of the reproductive population to survive (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008) (Santos Valencia et al. 2012) (SAGARPA 2014a). There have been no population assessments of the common octopus, and no catch quotas are set for this species. Although several regulations are in place for this fishery, non-compliance by fishers is known to be a problem. For instance, there are reports of fishers catching octopus with prohibited gears, catching octopus below the legal minimum size limit, fishing during the closed season, as well as fishing by non-licensed vessels (Salas et al. 2009) (Cabrera et al. 2012) (SAGARPA 2014a). Also, the established catch quotas for red octopus are often exceeded. In multiple years, management has extended the fishing season because fishermen reported low catches and declared economic hardship midway through the season. Extending the fishing season has often resulted in the fishery exceeding the annual quota by 22%–86% (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008) (Salas et al. 2009) (SAGARPA 2013). This had led to concerns about the sustainability of current fishing levels on the red octopus population. Recently, a new management plan for the octopus fishery was proposed to improve the sustainability of the fishery. The plan outlines a variety of management goals and actions, including maintaining octopus populations at the maximum sustainable yield, estimating the abundance of common octopus, researching more effective ways to monitor the catch quotas during the fishing season, improving enforcement and compliance with regulations, deterring illegal fishing, improving the economic stability of the fishery, and involving fishermen in the management process (SAGARPA 2014a). Several appropriate management strategies are in place to protect the red and common octopuses, but because regulations have not always been adequately enforced, their effectiveness is uncertain. We have therefore scored management strategy and implementation as “moderately effective.”

26

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/ endangered species. Mexico Gulf of Mexico, Handline

N/A

Neither the red octopus nor the common octopus is listed as overfished or depleted, so this factor is rated N/A. However, it should be noted that catches of red octopus have been above the established catch limits in several years and there are some concerns that high fishing levels on this species have led to abundance declines (SAGARPA 2013).

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status. Mexico Gulf of Mexico, Handline


The National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO) and the National Fisheries Institute (INAPESCA) are responsible for conducting research and providing advice on the development, preservation, and use of aquatic species (FAO 2005). Annual octopus catches are reported by fishers and density data is collected by scientists using underwater surveys. This information is used in annual population assessments to estimate abundance and determine yearly catch quotas for red octopus (Santos Valencia et al. 2012). However, there are some concerns about the monitoring of red octopus catches during the season in relation to the quota and concerns that the species may be over-exploited. Scientists have recommended monthly monitoring of red octopus catches and abundance during the fishing season to ensure the sustainability of the resource (SAGARPA 2007) (Perez Sanchez et al. 2010) (Salas et al. 2011). No population assessments are currently conducted for the common octopus and there are no estimates of abundance for this species. In 2013, 19 research priorities were identified in the new octopus fishery management plan (SAGARPA 2014a). These research priorities include assessing red and common octopus populations, determining biomass estimates for common

27

octopus, estimating illegal fishing practices, establishing methods to monitor weekly catches to comply with quotas, and evaluating environmental effects on the octopus populations (SAGARPA 2014a). There is regular monitoring and assessment of the red octopus, but because there is limited monitoring of the common octopus, this factor is rated as “moderately effective.”

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice. Mexico Gulf of Mexico, Handline


The National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO) and the National Fisheries Institute (INAPESCA) provide scientific advice on the management of fisheries (FAO 2005). Recommendations are offered by other stakeholders including private sector, government, and community interests (Ponce-Diaz et al. 2009). The Secretariat of the Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGRAPA) and the National Commission of Aquaculture and Fishing (CONAPESCA) utilize scientific advice in the management of fisheries, but some decisions are not based on science (OECD 2006). In the octopus fishery, scientists make recommendations on the yearly catch quota or limit for the red octopus, and managers seem to set the quota according to the scientific advice. However, management has sometimes extended the fishing season for economic reasons and allowed the quota to be exceeded (CONAPESCA-SAGARPA 2008) (SAGARPA 2013). Due to concerns about the sustainability of the red octopus population, scientists have recommended that managers set more precautionary catch limits for red octopus (SAGARPA 2013), that catches be monitored monthly, and that catch limits be set for specific locations to minimize pressure in certain areas (Arreguin-Sanchez 2000) (SAGARPA 2004) (SAGARPA 2007) (SAGARPA 2014). Managers have identified improved monitoring of the octopus catches and compliance with the quota as priorities in the new octopus management plan. Since managers only sometimes follow scientific advice, this results in a score of “moderately effective.”

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

28


Ineffective

The managing agencies—the Secretariat of the Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGRAPA) and National Commission for Aquaculture and Fishing (CONAPESCA)—have clear descriptions of octopus fishery regulations, including permits needed, gear that can be used, size restrictions, catch quotas, fishing boundaries, and seasonal closures (FAO 2005) (Lasseter 2006) (Perez Sanchez et al. 2010). Unfortunately, many of the regulations (gear, catch quotas, size limit, fishing season) are ignored by fishermen or not properly enforced by management (Chuenpagdee et al. 2002) (Lasseter 2006) (Ponce-Diaz et al. 2009) (Salas et al. 2011) (SAGARPA 2014a). For instance, it has been reported that as much as 30%–40% of the catch may consist of undersized octopus in some areas (this is particularly a problem in the small artisanal fishery directed at red octopus) (Salas et al. 2009) (Cabrera et al. 2012). Additionally, the catch quota for red octopus has been exceeded in 8 out of the last 10 years (SAGARPA 2014b). There are also reports of fishing by non-licensed vessels (SAGARPA 2014a). A shortage of enforcing officers and poverty among fishermen are two possible reasons why illegal fishing is occurring (Ponce-Diaz et al. 2009). In 2013, new plans were developed to reduce illegal fishing practices. These plans include estimating illegal fishing, developing new trap technologies to reduce illegal diving, improving efforts to monitor and comply with quotas, providing specific training for stakeholders (fishermen, surveillance, businessmen, etc.) and designating CONAPESCA and the Navy Department as responsible for checking and enforcing compliance (SAGARPA 2014a). Though new enforcement plans are in place, it is too soon to evaluate their effectiveness. Because enforcement, monitoring, and compliance have been poor in the past and recent years, this factor is rated “ineffective.”

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime. Mexico Gulf of Mexico, Handline


The octopus fishery has been an established commercial fishery since the 1970s, but most of the regulations protecting and managing the species were not implemented until the 1990s (SAGARPA 1993) (SAGARPA 1994) (Oosthuizen 2003) (SAGARPA 2004). In the past, fisheries in Mexico were marketed as a resource in hopes of obtaining broad participation. However, changes were made to the Fisheries Law in 2007 with the creation of the General Law of Sustainable Fishing and Aquaculture (Ponce-Diaz et al. 2009). This law’s goal is to manage fisheries for sustainability. Current regulations for

29

the octopus fishery include a minimum size limit, a closed season, and catch limits or quotas. Most of the management strategies in place are based on scientific information collected on red octopus; thus, these are primarily designed to protect this species. The effectiveness of current management strategies remains uncertain. Red octopus is considered fully utilized or potentially over-utilized (Arreguin-Sanchez et al. 2000) (Perez Sanchez et al. 2010) (SAGARPA 2013). Catches of red octopus have been above established catch quotas in recent years because fishery regulations have not been adequately enforced, and there have been issues with illegal fishing (SAGARPA 2013) (SAGARPA 2014a). Little scientific information is collected on the common octopus and the status of this species is unknown. Recently, a new fishery management plan for the octopus fishery was proposed, and actions were identified to improve the sustainability of the fishery, improve compliance with management regulations, and deter illegal fishing (SAGARPA 2014a). Since the current management track record is uncertain and a new management plan for the octopus fishery was only recently put in place, this factor is rated “moderately effective.”

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input. Mexico Gulf of Mexico, Handline


Historically, the Mexican government made most regulatory decisions for fisheries and conservation with little regard to scientific and stakeholder input. Recent changes in management goals and process now invite and promote community and stakeholder involvement. Recently, stakeholders have contributed to current management decisions (Ponce-Diaz et al. 2009) (SAGARPA 2014a). Since involvement of stakeholders has been minimal in the past but an effort is being made to improve inclusion, this factor is scored as “moderately effective.”

Factor 3.2: Bycatch Management Strategy Scoring Guidelines Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy and Implementation, Scientific Research and Monitoring, Record of Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’ Unless reason exists to rate Scientific Research

30

and Monitoring, Record of Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations differently, these ratings are the same as in 3.1. • 5 (Very Low Concern) —Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all four subfactors considered. • 4 (Low Concern) —Management Strategy rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at

least ‘moderately effective.’ • 3 (Moderate Concern) — All subfactors rates at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 2 (High Concern) — At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management

Strategy but some other factors rated ‘ineffective.’ • 1 (Very High Concern) —Management exists, but Management Strategy rated ‘ineffective.’ • 0 (Critical)— No bycatch management even when overfished, depleted, endangered or threatened

species are known to be regular components of bycatch and are substantially impacted by the fishery.

Factor 3.2 Summary

Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species Region / Method All Kept Critical Management

Strategy and Impl.

Scientific Research & Monitoring

Record of Following Scientific Advice

Enforcement of Regs.


Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

31

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment.

The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation of gear impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:


Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Region / Method Factor 4.1 Impact of Gear on Habitat Score

Factor 4.2 Mitigation of Gear Impacts Modifier

Factor 4.3 Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management Score

Criterion 4 Score


4.00:Very Low Concern

0.25:Minimal Mitigation

3.00:Moderate Concern

Green (3.571)

Criterion 4 Assessment Factor 4.1 – Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate Scoring Guidelines • 5 (None)—Fishing gear does not contact the bottom • 4 (Very Low)—Vertical line gear • 3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet,

bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally (

32

• 2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand

• 1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder)

• 0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl)

Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.


Very Low Concern

In Mexico, common and red octopuses are fished using baited lines that are attached to a wooden or bamboo pole, called a “jimba.” The jimba are attached to the boat, and typically there are six or seven baited lines attached to each jimba (Oosthuizen 2003) (Lasseter 2006) (Sweeting et al. 2006) (SAGARPA 2014a). The lines are pulled in by hand. The baited lines are intended to reach the ocean floor to attract octopus. Octopuses prefer seagrass, rocky, and coral reef habitats, so fishing may occur over these areas (SAGARPA 2014a). Compared to other fishing methods, handline fishing is among the least damaging to ocean habitats, but may cause minor damage to bottom substrates or to coral and sponges when fishing on reefs (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). This factor is scored as “very low concern”.

Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Scoring Guidelines

• +1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.

• +0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing.

• +0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced.

• 0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats.

33


Minimal Mitigation

Mexico has an impressive array of protected areas throughout the Mexican coastline, including several along the Yucatan Peninsula where the octopus fishery operates, but management and enforcement is limited (Bezaury-Creel 2005) (Ponce-Diaz et al. 2009) (Salas et al. 2011). The reserves along the Yucatan are managed for the general protection of flora and fauna (Sweeting et al. 2006). In some reserves, fishing practices are prohibited, including handline fishing (Sweeting et al. 2006). There are no other restrictions in place for the octopus fishery to limit total fishing effort or the spatial footprint. This results in a score of “minimal mitigation.”

Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Scoring Guidelines

• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators).

• 4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used.

• 3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts.

• 2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.

• 1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the fishery is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.


34

Moderate Concern

The common and red octopuses are active predators, primarily feeding on crustaceans (crabs and lobsters), molluscs (snails and clams), and fish. They are in turn a food source for many species, including groupers, snappers, other fish, and sometimes marine mammals (Lasseter 2006) (Arreguin-Sanchez 2000) (SAGARPA 2014a). Commercially important spiny lobster and red grouper share habitat with octopus, and these species are all connected through the food web. Octopus is an important prey item for red grouper, and both red grouper and octopus are predators of spiny lobster. Thus fishing and management regulations for any of these species will likely have some effect on the others (Lasseter 2006) (Arreguin-Sanchez 2000). Unfortunately, the damages and pressures that the octopus fishery has on the ecosystem and food web are not well studied. There has also been no assessment of the fishery’s effects on resources commonly used for bait (e.g., crabs). Since there is no management or assessment of ecosystem impacts, but octopuses are not considered to play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, this factor is rated as “moderate concern.”

35

Acknowledgements Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of The Safina Center or Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. The Safina Center and Seafood Watch® are solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

The Safina Center and Seafood Watch® would like to thank Juan Vilata and one other anonymous reviewer for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy and clarity.

36

References Abunader, I.V., S. Salas, and M. A. Cabrera. 2013. Differential Catchability by Zone, Fleet, and Size: The Case of the Red Octopus (Octopus maya) and Common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) Fishery in Yucatan, Mexico. Journal of Shellfish Research 32:845-854.

Arreguin-Sanchez F. 2000. Octopus-red grouper interaction in the exploited ecosystem of the northern continental shelf of Yucatan, Mexico. Ecological Modelling 129: 119-129.

Arreguin-Sanchez F. 1992. Growth and seasonal recruitment of octopus maya on campeche bank, Mexico. NAGA, The ICLARM Quarterly. 31-34.

Arreguín-Sánchez F., M.J. Solís-Ramírez, M.E. González de la Rosa. 2000. Population dynamics and stock assessment for Octopus maya (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) fishery in the Campeche Bank, Gulf of Mexico. Revista de Biología Tropical 48: 323-31. Available at: http://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.php?script=sci_arttextpid=S0034-77442000000200005lng=es.

Arroyo A.M., S.M. Naim, J.Z. Hidalgo. 2011. Vulnerability to climate change of marine and coastal fisheries in Mexico. Atmosfera 1:103-23.

Auster P.J., R.W. Langton. 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. American Fisheries Society symposium. 37pp.

Bezaury-Creel, J.E. 2005. Protected areas and coastal and ocean management in Mexico. Ocean Coastal Management 48:1016-1046.

Boyle P.R., S.V. Boletzky. 1996. Cephalopod populations: definitions and dynamics. Philosophical transactions: biological sciences 351: 981-1002.

Cabrera, M.A., J. Ramos-Miranda, S. Salas, D. Flores-Hernandez, A. Sosa-Lopez. 2012. Population Structure Analysis of Red Octopus (Octopus maya) in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Proceedings of the 64th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute October 31 - November 5, 2011.

Chenpagdee, R., J. Fraga, J.I. Euan-Avila. 2002. Community perspectives toward a marine reserve: A case study of San Felipe, Yucatan, Mexico. Coastal Management 30:183-191.

CONAPESCA-SAGARPA. 2008. Plan de maejo y operacion de comite de administracion pesquera de escama y pulpo. 174pp.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2005. National Aquaculture Legislation Overview: Mexico. Fact Sheets. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_mexico/en.

37

FAO. 2008. Status of the stocks of the western central Atlantic FAO statistical area 31. Western central Atlantic Fisheries Commission (WECAFC) XIII. 15pp.

FAO. 2014a. Species Fact Sheets Octopus vulgaris (Lamarck, 1798). Available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/3571/en

FAO. 2014b. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics. FishStatJ. http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/en

Global Biotech Consulting Group (GBC group). 2014. http://www.gbcbiotech.com/genomicaypesca/en/especies/moluscos/pulpo.html Accessed on: April 6, 2014.

Gillespie, G.E., G. Parker, J. Morrison. A review of octopus fisheries biology and british columbia octopus fisheries. Canadian stock assessment secretariat research document 98/87. 67pp.

Guerra A., L. Allcock, J. Pereira. 2010. Cephalopod life history, ecology and fisheries: An introduction. Fisheries Research 106:117-24.

Hernández-Sánchez, A. and A. Jesús-Navarrete. 2010. Growth parameters, mortality and exploitation rate of Octopus maya, at Holbox, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Revista de Biología Marina y Oceanografía Vol. 45: 415-421,

Juarez O.E., C. Rosas, L. Arena. 2010. Heterologous microsatellites reveal moderate genetic structure in the octopus maya population. Fisheries research 106:209-13.

Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 470. Rome, FAO. 1-131.

Lasseter A. 2006. Lobsters are like gold: perceptions of resource access and management in a Mexican common property fishery. Masters thesis. 180pp.

Macfadyen G., T. Huntington, R. Cappell. 2009. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No.185. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 523. 115pp.

Mather J.A., R.K. O'Dor. 1991. Foraging strategies and predation risk shape the natural history of juvenile octopus vulgaris. Bulletin of marine science 49:256-259.

Morgan, L.E., R. Chuenpagdee. 2003. Shifting gears: addressing the collateral impacts of fishing methods in U.S. waters. PEW Science Series. 142pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Fisheries statistics division: commercial fisheries and foreign trade information. National Marine Fisheries Service. Accessed March 31, 2014. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index

Northeast Region Essential Fish Habitat Steering Committee (NREFHSC). 2002. Workshop on the Effects of Fishing Gear on Marine Habitats off the Northeastern United States, October 23-25, 2001, Boston,

38

Massachusetts. Northeast Fishery Science Center Reference Document 02-01. 86 pp. Available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0201/crd0201.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2013

Organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD). 2006. Agricultural and fisheries policies in Mexico - recent achievements, continuing the reform agenda. 332pp.

Oosthuizen A. 2003. A development and management framework for a new octopus vulgaris fishery in South Africa. Doctoral dissertation. 203pp.

Perez Sanchez M.I., J. Ramos Miranda, F. Gomez Criollo, D. Flores Hernandez, A. Sosa Lopez, N. Ferraez Campos, S. Cinco, J. Santos Valencia, L.A. Ayala Perez. 2010. Red octopus' (octopus maya Voss Solis, 1967) landings from the littoral of campeche: time series analysis. 6pp.

Ponce-Diaz, G., F. Arregin-Sanchez, A. Diaz-de Leon, P. Alvarez Torres. 2009. Promotion and management of marine fisheries in mexico. In: Winter G. 2009. Towards a sustainable fisheries law: a comparative analysis. IUCN environmental policy and law paper no. 74. 340pp.

Secretaria de agricultura, ganaderia, desarrollo rural, pesca y alimentacion (SAGARPA). 1993. NORMA Oficial Mexicana 008-PESC-1993, para ordenar el aprovechamiento de las especies de pulpo en las aguas de jurisdicción federal del Golfo de México y mar Caribe. 2pp.

SAGARPA. 1994. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-009-PESC-1993, que establece el procedimiento para determinar las épocas y zonas de veda para la captura de las diferentes especies de la flora y fauna acuáticas, en aguas de jurisdicción federal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. 3pp.

SAGARPA. 2004. Evaluacion de la poblacion de pulpo (octopus maya) en peninsula de yucatan 2004. 13pp.

SAGARPA. 2006. Pulpo - region IV: Yucatan, Campeche y Quintana Roo. 22pp.

SAGARPA. 2007. Evaluacion de la poblacion de pulpo (octopus maya) en peninsula de yucatan 2007. 11pp. Available at: http://www.gbcbiotech.com/genomicaypesca/documentos/moluscos/pulpo/Evaluacion%20de%20la%20poblacion%20de%20pulpo%20Octopus%20maya%20en%20la%20peninsula%20de%20Yucatan.pdf

SAGARPA. 2012a. 2012 season Octopus in the Yucatan http://www.conapesca.sagarpa.gob.mx/wb/cona/01_agosto_de_2012_mazatlan_sinaloa

SAGARPA. 2012b. National Fisheries Report 2012. Available at http://www.inapesca.gob.mx/portal/publicaciones/carta-nacional-pesquera

SAGARPA. 2013. Dictamen tecnico: Para el establecimiento de cutoa de captura de pulpo octopus maya para la temporada de pesca 2013. 13 pp. Available at http://www.inapesca.gob.mx/portal/publicaciones/dictamenes/cat_view/15-pulpo

39

SAGARPA 2014a. ACUERDO por el que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero de pulpo (O. Maya y O. Vulgaris) del Golfo de México y Mar Caribe. 48pp. Available at: http://sagarpa.gob.mx/normateca/Normateca/ACUERDO%20por%20el%20que%20se%20da%20a%20conocer%20el%20Plan%20de%20Manejo%20Pesquero%20de%20pulpo%20del%20Golfo%20de%20M%C3%A9xico%20y%20Mar%20Caribe.pdf

SAGARPA. 2014b. Dictamen tecnico: Establecimiento de cutoa de captura de pulpo octopus maya para la temporada de pesca 2014. 12 pp. Available at http://www.inapesca.gob.mx/portal/publicaciones/dictamenes/cat_view/15-pulpo

Salas S., R. Chuenpagdee, A. Charles, J.C. Seijo. 2011. Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO technical paper no. 544. 444pp.

Salas, S., M.A. Cabrera, L. Palomo, E. Torres-Irineo. 2009. Using Indicators to Assess Regulatory Measures on Octopus Fishery Interaction Yucatán given the Fleet. Proceedings of the 61st Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute November 10 - 14, 2008.

Santos Valencia, J., J.C. Espinoza Mendez, G. Galindo Cortez. 2012. Dictamen tecnico: PARA EL ESTABLECIMIENTO DE CUOTA DE CAPTURA DE PULPO Octopus maya PARA LA TEMPORADA DE PESCA 2012. 8pp.

Semmens J.M., G.T. Pecl, B.M. Gillanders, C.M. Waluda, E.K. Shea, D. Jouffre, T. Ichii, K. Zumholz, O.N. Katugin, S.C. Leporati, P.W.Shaw. 2007. Reviews in fish biology and fisheries 17: 401-23.

Silva, L., I. Sobrino, F. Ramos. 2002. Reproductive biology of the common octopus, Octopus vulgaris cuvier, 1797 (cephalopoda:octopodidae) in the Gulf of Cadiz (SW Spain). Bulletin of marine science 71:837-850.

Sweeting C.J., W.J.F. Le Quesne, N.V.C. Polunin, H. Xu, H. Ding, J. Wu, F. Arreguin-Sanchez, D. Lercari, M.J. Zetina-Rejon. 2006. A review of the similarities and differences of planning, operation, stakeholder involvement and effectiveness of selected MPAs. INCOFISH Deliverable 5.1 MPA Report. 145pp.

Van Heukelem W.F. 1976. Growth, biogenergetics and life-span of octopus cyanea and octopus maya. PhD dissertation: University of Hawaii. 232pp.

Vaz-Pires P., P. Seixas, A. Barbosa. 2004. Aquaculture potential of the common octopus (octopus vulgaris cuvier, 1797): a review. Aquculture 238:221-38.

Voss G.L., M. Solis Ramirez. 1966. Octopus maya, a new species from the bay of campeche, Mexico. Bulletin of marine science 16: 615-25.

40

Appendix A: Main Species Considered in the Assessment

Summary of all main species considered in the assessment

Mexico Gulf of Mexico, Handline Species Factor 1.1




Subscore

RED OCTOPUS Low 3.00: Moderate Concern

1.00: High Concern

1.732

COMMON OCTOPUS Low 3.00: Moderate Concern

2.33: Moderate Concern

2.644

Octopus vulgaris Octopus maya...During the day, octopuses are often burrowed in dens, and at night...

Documents

Transcript of Octopus vulgaris Octopus maya...During the day, octopuses are often burrowed in dens, and at night...