Intrinsic rate of increase is unknown. Patagonian Toothfish reach sexual maturity between 6 and 10 years (Kock 1992, 2001; Lack and Sant 2001; CCAMLR 2002); FishBase 2004) and grow up to 130 kilograms (Kock 1992; CCAMLR 2002). This species lives for at least 45 to 50 years (Constable et al. 2000; Constable 2002; Catarci 2004; Fallon and Kriwoken 2004).

Juvenile Patagonian Toothfish aggregate on seamounts and banks, in nearshore areas, and in shallow areas around islands. This behavior makes the juveniles easier to target by trawl vessels than the adults, and, as a result, juvenile fishing mortality is high in these areas (Fallon, pers. comm., 2005).

Patagonian Toothfish exhibit a relatively low fecundity, ranging from 48,000 to 500,000 eggs per fish, per spawning season (Chikov and Melnikov 1990; Lack and Sant 2001). FishBase reports a fecundity of 230,000 (FishBase 2004). The low fecundity of Patagonian Toothfish makes this species vulnerable to overfishing (Agnew 2000; Williams 2001; Waterhouse 2001; Fallon and Stratford 2003; Fallon and Kriwoken 2004).

Patagonian Toothfish occur in sub-Antarctic and temperate waters off southern South America, off islands, seamounts, and banks in the Southern Atlantic, Pacific, Indian Oceans, and off several sub-Antarctic islands (Lack and Sant 2001; TRAFFIC 2003; Fallon and Stratford 2004). Their range extends to the southern waters of Peru and Brazil. An adult Patagonian Toothfish has even been captured off the coast of Greenland, although it is thought to have migrated there from Argentine waters (Møller et al. 2003). We consider this to be a medium-sized range and chose to neither subtract nor add for this factor.

Patagonian Toothfish is undergoing high fishing pressure (from both legal and illegal vessels), which is depleting its populations. Although that much is understood, estimates of abundance are lacking for most Patagonian Toothfish populations, including those within the CCAMLR (Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) Convention Area and Chilean, Argentinean, and Uruguayan Exclusive Economic Zones (AAD 2001; CCAMLR 2004a; TRAFFIC 2003; Fallon and Kriwoken 2004).

Throughout the Patagonian Toothfish fisheries, there are signs of population decline. For example, in just 3 years, the South African fishery around Prince Edward and Marion Islands had depleted the Patagonian Toothfish population to such low levels that the fishery was no longer operable (Duncan 2002; SA 2005).

On the Argentine shelf, abundance of Patagonian Toothfish declined until 1992, after which the population stabilized, but at a lower level of abundance. In 1998, heightened recruitment to the population was followed by relative stability in 1999 and 2000 (TRAFFIC 2003). Catch Per Unit of Effort (CPUE) data in both the Argentine longline fleet that targets Patagonian Toothfish and the trawler fleet that captures Patagonian Toothfish as bycatch showed a declining trend over the period 1993 to 2001 (TRAFFIC 2003).

Patagonian Toothfish landings by the Chilean longline fleet have slowly decreased since 1993. During that same period, CPUE data also showed a declining trend in several fishing grounds (TRAFFIC 2003). In Chile’s industrial longline fleet, CPUE dropped about 70% from 1.2 kg per hook in 1991 to 0.3 kg per hook in 2000. Yields for Chile’s artisanal longline fleet declined by about 40% from 1986 to 1996, falling from an average of 308 kg per day to 178 kg per day during the peak July to December fishing season (TRAFFIC 2003).

No national government or the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Area (CCAMLR) has declared Patagonian Toothfish to be “overfished.” The absence of Patagonian Toothfish from national and international lists of overfished, depleted, endangered, and threatened species reflects the inability of management agencies to adequately monitor the effects of fishing on this species and their reticence to acknowledge the severe depletion the agencies continue to allow.

Bottom longlines are the primary gear type used to catch Patagonian Toothfish, although some Patagonian Toothfish are caught by bottom trawls (Brothers 1995, Schiavini et al. 1998; Brothers et al. 1999; Gandini and Frere 2001; Frere 2001; Lack and Sant 2001; Fallon and Stratford 2003; TRAFFIC 2003). Some fisheries are also experimenting with pot fishing (Fallon, pers. comm., 2005).

In the autolining/Mustad method, which was developed especially for the Patagonian Toothfish fishery, longlines are dragged along the ocean floor. They can be up to 70 to 130 km in length, but are generally less than 15 km in length and carry 5,000 to 15,000 baited hooks on meter-long branchlines (Fallon and Stratford 2003; Tuck et al. 2003).

Critical habitat areas for Patagonian Toothfish have not been defined. Therefore, it is uncertain whether these areas are protected by current management measures, including time/area closures and marine reserves (Fallon, pers. comm., 2005).

Considerable effort by scientists, governments, and licensed fishers is underway to understand and mitigate damage to benthic habitats and communities caused by Patagonian Toothfish longline and trawl fisheries (Fallon, pers. comm., 2005).

The small Marine Stewardship Council-certified fishery that operates off the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands requires fishery observers to record if fishing operations incidentally catch deepwater corals, which are important habitat-providers on the seafloor (Holt et al. 2004).

Up to 96% of Patagonian Toothfish are found in waters regulated by the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) or by Coastal State jurisdiction (i.e., within national maritime waters; Fallon and Kriwoken 2004). Established in 1982, CCAMLR is an international organization responsible for conserving marine life and managing fisheries in waters south of the Antarctic Convergence, which occurs between 50 and 60 degrees south (CCAMLR 1980). CCAMLR, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay all have management frameworks in place for the Patagonian Toothfish fisheries that they regulate. CCAMLR requires fishing vessels to carry licenses and satellite-linked Vessel Monitoring Systems, undergo port inspections if they are landing Patagonian Toothfish, and abide fishing seasons and closures in various divisions within the Convention Area (CCAMLR 2004b). Despite the seemingly sufficient level of management, these agencies have been largely unsuccessful at eliminating illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, adequately assessing population abundance, and preventing overfishing of Patagonian Toothfish (CCAMLR 2004b; TRAFFIC 2003). Also CCAMLR continues to support exploratory fisheries for Patagonian Toothfish that often exceed their catch limits (CCAMLR 2004a).

IUU fishing constituted more than 70% of the total catch of Patagonian Toothfish during the 1996/97 fishing season. Since, IUU fishing has declined, and in the 2002/03 fishing season, estimated IUU catches were 38% of the total estimated catch (CCAMLR 2004a). American fishery managers reported a 75% decline in IUU fishing within the Convention Area, from 10,070 metric tons (mt) in 2003 to 2,622 mt in 2004 (NOAA 2004a). Fishery managers attributed this decline to the implementation of a Catch Documentation Scheme, which requires all vessels from CCAMLR member states operating in the Convention Area (excluding krill fisheries) to use automated satellite-linked vessel monitoring systems (CCAMLR 2004b). This regulation allows countries, such as the U.S. (the third largest importer of Patagonian Toothfish), to restrict imports of Patagonian Toothfish to shipments from authorized vessels that fished inside the legal boundaries of the fishery (NOAA 2004a, b).

However, this reduction in IUU fishing, remains unverified, as it was largely based on “incomplete, subjective, and reduced” IUU vessel sightings, not on solid evidence indicating a decline in IUU catches or trade in this species (Fallon, pers. comm., 2005). More investigation is needed to determine how effective this regulation has been in reducing illegal catches of Patagonian Toothfish (Fallon, In Prep.).

An estimated 5% of the annual reported Patagonian Toothfish catch is Antarctic Toothfish, a closely related and visually similar species. Researchers believe that IUU fishing vessels are increasingly targeting Antarctic Toothfish, which is generally sold as Patagonian Toothfish. Antarctic Toothfish fisheries are generally in the more remote, high latitudes around Antarctic, which enables IUU fishers to fish undetected (Lack and Sant 2001; Tuck et al. 2003). Managers do not know how much IUU fishing is affecting Antarctic Toothfish populations (Fallon, pers. comm., 2005), and the selling of this species as Patagonian Toothfish makes management of both toothfish species even more difficult.

In Argentina, vessels that fish within its national maritime waters are subject to a Maximum Permitted Catch measure; however, catches have generally exceeded it in recent years. Also, there are no catch limits placed on Argentine vessels that fish outside the CCAMLR Convention Area or EEZ. Trawlers incidentally catch large numbers of juvenile Patagonian Toothfish, which could threaten the population in that area. Due to lack of government resources to monitor catches onboard vessels (by observers) and in port (by port authorities), 25% of the annual Patagonian Toothfish catch is likely not recorded and, therefore, not counted against the Maximum Permitted Catch level (TRAFFIC 2003).

In Chile, all fleets must abide by CCAMLR’s Catch Documentation Scheme, and all industrial vessels are tracked with the satellite-based vessel monitoring system. The industrial longline fleet is managed via transferable catch quotas, which are sold at public auction for 1 to 10% of the annual catch for 10 years. The artisanal fleet, however, is neither managed with catch limits nor required to carry observers (TRAFFIC 2003).

In light of the many problems associated with Patagonian Toothfish fisheries, it may seem surprising that, in 2004, the Marine Stewardship Council certified a small fishery that operates out of the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands as sustainable. A high level of surveillance is carried out to prevent IUU fishing within the fishery’s managed area, there is good compliance with annual catch limits, and the fishery has made considerable progress in reducing bycatch (Holt et al. 2004). However, the certification is contentious because it was based on a population assessment that failed to consider the possible transitory movement of Patagonian Toothfish between the South Georgia and Argentine shelf areas. Also, there are signs of overfishing within the fishery, and some researchers have even suggested closing the fishery to enable the population to recover (CCAMLR 2004a).

Almost all Patagonian Toothfish fisheries operate in regulated waters. However, IUU fishing poses a major problem to the species and the fisheries that depend on it. Due to these factors and the depletion of Patagonian Toothfish populations in many areas, we choose to award a low score of 1.00 point here.

The level of Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported fishing is poorly understood, and estimates of IUU catches are likely minimal (CCAMLR 2004a). CCAMLR conducts population assessments and monitors catches of CCAMLR member states’ vessels (Agnew 2000; Lack and Sant 2001; Fallon and Kriwoken 2004). Assessments do not, however, include a stock-recruitment relationship analysis. Therefore, they do not account for the possible effects of large reductions in the number of spawning adults on future recruitment. Significant uncertainties also remain, especially concerning key assessment parameters, such as growth and natural mortality (Lack and Sant 2001).

No rebuilding plans are in place for many Patagonian Toothfish populations in the CCAMLR Convention Area or in national maritime waters, including Argentine, Chilean, and Uruguayan waters (TRAFFIC 2003).

Excess capacity is a problem for some Patagonian Toothfish fisheries within national maritime waters and CCAMLR’s management area (Fallon, pers. comm., 2005). For example, there is excess capacity in the Argentine and Chilean longline fleets that target Patagonian Toothfish (TRAFFIC 2003).

Legal and illegal Patagonian Toothfish fishing activities cause high levels of incidental seabird mortality. Up to 100,000 deaths per year have occurred in seabird populations breeding on sub-Antarctic islands in the Southern Ocean (Birdlife International 2002; ISOFISH 2002; Fallon and Kriwoken 2004). The CCAMLR ad hoc Working Group on Incidental Mortality Arising from Fishing (WG-IMAF) estimates that, since 1996, the number of seabirds caught incidentally in illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing operations in the Convention Area lies between 278,400 to 700,200 birds (WG-IMAF 2002; Fallon and Kriwoken 2004).

According to the World Conservation Union (IUCN), of the 61 species of seabirds affected by longline fisheries, 25 are threatened with extinction, including 17 species of albatrosses (IUCN 2005). There is compelling evidence that longline mortality is a significant component in the declines of many of these species (Gilman 2001), including the Critically Endangered Amsterdam and Chatham Albatrosses, the Endangered Sooty, Black-browed, and Yellow-nosed Albatrosses, and the Vulnerable Wandering and Grey-headed Albatross, Southern Giant Petrel and White-chinned Petrel (WG-FSA 2003; IUCN 2000).

Bycatch of fish in Patagonian Toothfish fisheries includes skates, rays, and macrourid species and ranges from approximately 1 to 15% of the annual catches by longline and trawl fisheries in some CCAMLR areas. Bycatch rates of these species in this fishery are low compared to that of other fisheries in the Southern Ocean (Holt et al. 2004). Bycatch also includes Sleeper and Porbeagle Sharks (CCAMLR 2004a).

Trawl fisheries that target other species catch juvenile Patagonian Toothfish as bycatch. For example, in 2000, bycatch of Patagonian Toothfish in trawl fisheries targeting other species represented 60% of Argentina’s total declared catch of this species. There are some measures in place to reduce bycatch of this species in trawl fisheries, including Australian trawl and longline fisheries’ compliance with strict bycatch limits (Fallon, pers. comm., 2005). Because some national governments have substantial measures in place to reduce Patagonian Toothfish bycatch, we chose not to subtract here.

Seabird bycatch in demersal longline Patagonian Toothfish fisheries is contributing to the decline of several albatross and petrel species, which are categorized as Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Threatened species (WG-FSA 2003; IUCN 2005). That being said, CCAMLR and some national governments have adopted far-reaching regulations to reduce the level of seabird bycatch in these fisheries (Gilman 2001; CCAMLR 2004b; TRAFFIC 2003). These measures, including the requirement for night setting, line weighting and setting streamer (tori) lines, are achieving quantifiable success in reducing seabird bycatch (Tuck et al. 2003; WG-FSA 2003; Brothers, pers. comm., 2004; Fallon and Kriwoken 2004). For example, at the 22nd CCAMLR Commission meeting, the Scientific Committee noted that only 15 seabirds had been killed in the previous year by the regulated Patagonian Toothfish longline fisheries. This was the lowest estimated seabird bycatch ever recorded (WG-FSA 2003).

However, we recognize that a dichotomy exists between legal and illegal longline fishing mortality. For example, in 2001, the Marine Stewardship Council-certified South Georgia longline fleet caught and killed only 6 seabirds, in addition to 5000 metric tons of Patagonian Toothfish (Holt et al. 2004). Researchers estimated that during that same year, the illegal fleet, which was not using bycatch mitigation measures, caught thousands of seabirds (WG-IMAF 2002; Fallon and Kriwoken 2004). This illustrates that the problem is not longline fishing per se, but rather the lack of mitigation measures being used by illegal Patagonian Toothfish longline vessels (Fallon and Kriwoken 2004). Thus 75% reduction in illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing for Patagonian Toothfish that took place from 2003 to 2004 (NOAA 2004a) likely also resulted in a large reduction in seabird bycatch.

In Chile, seabird bycatch mitigation measures, including bird-scaring devices, de-frosted baits, night fishing, and weighted mainlines, are used in the industrial Patagonian Toothfish longline fishery. The artisanal fleet, which is less regulated, is not required to carry observers or implement any of these bycatch mitigation measures (TRAFFIC 2003).