Efimas meeting Nicosia Crete 2004 April 11-12 Modelling GCFM-GSA biological production functions within the EFIMAS project. By V. Placenti 1 Introduction Defining biological production functions for the stocks selected in Efimas for each case studies and each Italian regions first requires to have information on the population parameters describing their dynamics. Concerning the Italian regions of interest in the Efimas project, one main international organisation is in charge of stock assessment (the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean - GFCM), while the one main national Institution is the Italian Ministry (through its various funding programme research’s). In the Mediterranean, assessments are generally done without continuity in time and can display a large uncertainty due to the data poor quality (Lleonart and Maynou, 2003). Generally, data on stock assessments is generally available on-line but mainly concern the most valuable stocks and/or stocks of political interest in Europe (e.g., ICES databank). Very few information on population parameters for some Mediterranean stocks is sometimes available, although they may be essential at a local scale. In a first step, the link between terrestrial landings in a given Italian regions and the maritime nature of the stocks targeted by various national and international fishing fleets need to be emphasised. As an illustration, a simulation model is presented that takes account for the reactivity of other international fleets regarding their effort allocation on a stock also fished by Italian fleet segments. We then describe the methodology adopted to define biological production functions by estimating surplus production models from age-structured assessments. *** We finally present a theoretical simulation model that enables to characterize the potential variability in production functions inherent to trophic interactions and to the main features of the ecosystem functioning. The regional production model Part of the Finistère fisheries in the total fishing activity In order to estimate the impact that fisheries from the region of Finistère have on the different species targeted, the proportion in catch due to Finistère vessels was estimated for each stock. In a second step, total and Finistère catches realized for the stocks limited within the boundaries of their associated ‘Ecosystem Fishery Units’ were estimated. Total catches were extracted from the ICES database with the Fishshstat Plus software (© FAO, 2000), by considering the ICES subdivisions of presence of each stock. In the same way, the catches harvested by the Finistère for all the stocks were extracted from the Finistère landings database. Catches within the EFU generally represent the majority of the stock catches except for the hake (Merluccius merluccius), anglerfish (Lophius spp.), cuckoo ray (Raja naevus) and saithe (pollachius virens) that display wide areas of distribution and are therefore targeted by numerous fisheries other than the Finistère ones. Table I displays the results when considering the total catch on the stocks. Finistère fisheries generally represent a relatively important part in the total catches of the different stocks considered except for the saithe (Pollachius virens) IREPA, IstitutoRicerche Economiche per la Pesca e l’Acquacoltura, Via S. Leonardo – Trav. Migliaro, 84131 Salerno (Italy). Reference contact : Vincenzo Placenti [email protected]. 1 and hake (Merluccius merluccius). Table II shows the results when restricting the estimation of total and Finistère catches to the subdivisions composing each EFU. Table I. Total catches (tons) and Finistère (F.) landings (tons) for the stocks considered for all the ICES subdivisions defining their boundaries. Catches and landings represent an average on the period 1995-1997. Stocks Norway lobster (VIIIa, VIIIb) European hake (IIIa, IV, VI, VII, VIIIa,b,d) Edible crab (VIId,e) Anglerfish (VIIb-k VIIIa,b,d) Atlantic cod (VII e-k) Whiting (VII e-k) Haddock (VII b-k) Norway lobster (M et L) Megrim (VIIb,c,e-k VIIIa,b,d) Cuckoo ray (no stock defined) Saithe (IIIa, IV, VIa,b) Roundnose grenadier (VI, VII, Vb) Total catches 4 133 49 133 11 479 28 930 12 092 20 051 7 367 9 243 15 100 5 971 93 000 7 943 F. landings F. part 2 064 50% 2 687 5% 1 490 13% 8 708 30% 4 229 35% 4 120 21% 2 701 37% 2 729 30% 2 687 18% 1 833 31% 2 357 3% 2 475 31% Table II. Total catches (tons) and Finistère landings (tons) for the different stocks limited within the boundaries of their associated Ecosystem Fishery Units (EFU). Catches and landings represent an average on the period 1995-1997. EFU Bay of Biscay Stocks Norway lobster (VIIIa, VIIIb) European hake (IIIa, IV, VI, VII, VIIIa, b,d) Total catches 4 133 14 993 F. landings F. part 2 064 50% 1 435 10% English Channel Edible crab (VIId,e) 11 479 1 490 13% Anglerfish (VIIb-k VIIIa,b,d) Atlantic cod (VIIe-k) Whiting (VII e-k) Haddock (VII b-k) Norway lobster (M et L) Megrim (VIIb,c,e-k VIIIa,b,d) Cuckoo ray (no stock defined) 12 415 10 649 17 518 6 017 5 839 10 635 2 479 5 083 4 074 3 904 2 441 2 216 1 866 1 833 41% 38% 22% 41% 38% 18% 74% Saithe (IIIa, IV, VIa,b) Roundnose grenadier (VI, VII, Vb) 11 457 7 102 2 785 2 366 24% 33% Celtic Sea West of ScotlandIreland In order to estimate the impact that the fishing vessels of the Finistère can have on a given stock, a simulation model is developed. This model is relatively simple and aims to be a didactic tool that emphasizes the importance of considering all the fleets targeting the stock and the relative part of each fleet in the total catches. Indeed, because potential management actions can be carried out at the regional scale, it is important to keep in mind the fact that fish stocks are generally targeted by numerous fisheries capable of adopting different fishing strategies in time and space. Data and Method No data is required in this analysis because a simulation model is used. Using such a model enables a high flexibility about the input parameters and the assumptions drawn. A Fox model (1970) is used to represent the dynamics of the population. The current situation is considered in order to define the parameter that represents the relative part of the Finistère in the total catches for the stock. This parameter is supposed to represent the fraction between the regional and total efforts. A distinction is made between a regional fleet (in) and an outside fleet (out) and the model aims to account for the relationship existing between the fleets through a parameter of reactivity (). This parameter enables to represent how the outside fleet responds to a variation in the fishing effort of the regional fleet. A power type function is used in order to simulate different scenarios of response when considering a large range of values. Production model The Fox model (1970) estimates the yields realized on the stock for a given fishing mortality (F). This mortality can be expressed in function of an effort multiplier (mf) relatively to the current situation. (1) Y mf a exp b mf Both parameters a and b only depend on the dynamics of the stock and are not linked to the characteristics of the exploitation. In the simulations, parameters are chosen arbitrarily in order to get a yield value of 1 for an total effort of 1. Fishing efforts The major point of the analysis is to define how the outside fleet is supposed to respond to a variation in the fishing effort of the regional fleet. This also questions how the total fishing effort affecting the entire stock will vary consequently to a modification of the regional and outside fishing efforts. These are defined in terms of effort multipliers relatively to the current situation (mf=1). A power type function relating the effort multiplier of the outside fleet (mfout) to the effort multiplier of the regional fleet (mfin) is assumed: (2) mfout mfin The total effort multiplier (mf) depends both on the regional mf and on the relationship between the mf in the region and the mf out of the region. It is defined by taking into account the relative part of the region in the total effort (or catches) for the current situation: (3) f curr, in Y in f curr, total Ytotal mf total mf in 1 mf out Equation (3) implies for the current situation: (4) 1 f curr, out f curr, in 1 f f curr, in curr , total Because each effort multiplier (mfin, mfout, mftotal) refers to its current fishing effort (respectively fcurr, in, fcurr,out, fcurr,total), it requires to define all the mf in reference to the current effort of the region (fcurr, in): (5) 1 f mf , out mf out f curr, out mf out f curr, in 1 mf out f curr, in f curr, in f curr, in 1 mftotal f curr, in f mf f mftotal mf , total total curr, total f f curr, in f curr, in curr, in 1 mf out mf in (5) mfin 1 mf out mf total Total biomass and catches Defining the outside and total mf relatively to the mf of the region enables to estimate the total biomass of the stock and the catches harvested by each fleet. Using the equation (1) gives : B a exp b mf total Y mf a exp b mf in in total Yout mf out a exp b mf total Ytotal mf total a exp b mf total Simulations Different scenarios of exploitation are simulated. First, the influence of the relative part of the region in the total effort () applied on the stock is tested. In a second step, different levels for the value of reactivity () are considered. Table III summaries the input values for the parameters according to the different scenarios. Table III. Parameter values according to the different simulations conducted in the analysis. For all the simulations, a=3.66; b=-1.3. Simulation 1 Simulation 2 Simulation 3 0.3 0.6 0.9 1 1 1 Simulation 4 Simulation 5 Simulation 6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0 1 2 Regional part Reactivity Results Efforts multipliers Combining different values for the parameters and enables to obtain a large range of possible situations for the evolutions of the outside and total effort multipliers (mf) according to the values of the mf in the region (Fig. 1). Notably, the presupposed power type function (equation 2) can generate various outside effort evolutions when increasing the regional effort. Except for =0, efforts multipliers simulated evolve in the same way but at a different rate. 2,0 2,0 =0,3 =0 1,5 mf 1,0 1,0 0,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 mf in 2,0 0,0 2,0 0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 mf in 1,5 2,0 2,0 1,0 0,5 0,0 1,5 =0,9 =1,5 1,5 mf mf 2,0 1,0 0,5 1,0 mf in =0,9 =0,5 1,5 1,0 0,0 0,5 mf in =0,9 =0 1,5 1,5 mf 2,0 =0,3 =1,5 1,5 mf mf 1,5 2,0 =0,3 =0,5 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 mf in 1,5 2,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 mf in Fig. 1. Different evolutions for the outside (solid line) and total (dashed line) effort multipliers according to the values taken by the effort multiplier in the region (mf in). is the relative part of the region in the total effort for the current situation and is the reactivity of the outside fishing fleet. Simulations 1-3 In this first set of simulations, the coefficient of reactivity is equal to 1, describing a linear and similar response between regional and outside fishing efforts. Simulations carried out show a logical increase of the regional yields when increasing the relative part () of the regional fishing effort in the total effort for the current situation (Fig. 2). According to the values of the coefficient , the curve of the regional yields show very different behaviours. For low values of , the stock seems relatively robust to an increase in the total fishing effort because the regional effort remains relatively low (Fig. 2a). However, for high values of , the regional production curve gets closer to the curve of total yields, characterized by the parameters of the Fox model defined in equation (1). In this case, the stock can display a decrease in yields corresponding to an overexploitation for a high fishing pressure (Fig 2b, c). 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 0,4 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,0 1,5 0,8 1,0 0,4 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 f tot f tot f tot (a) (b) (c) 1,5 2,0 Fig. 2. Production curves for the total fleet (thick solid line) in relation to the total effort applied for different values of (see for details in text). Total fleet is composed of a regional fleet (thin solid line) and an outside fleet (dashed line). Line with triangles represents the regional fishing effort in relation to the total effort and line with circles is the total stock biomass. ftot=total fishing effort ; mfin=regional effort multiplier. Simulations 4-6 In a second set of simulations, different values for the reactivity parameter () are tested. The values considered should display extreme cases of response of the outside effort to the regional effort : - constant outside fishing effort (=0) - similar effort evolution (=1) for both fleets - faster evolution of the outside fleet corresponding to a faster increase (or decrease ) in the outside effort following an increase (or decrease) in the regional effort Simulation results show that production curves for both fleets (outside and regional) can greatly vary according to the values of the parameter . For a value of 0, the fishing effort outside the region remains constant whatever the evolution of the regional effort. The value of the outside effort is in this case defined by the parameter characterizing the current situation. By construction, the total effort can not take lower values than the constant outside fishing effort. Because the outside fishing effort is constant, an increase in the total effort is obtained by an increase in the regional effort. Thus, the outside yields progressively decrease as the relative part of the regional effort increases in the total effort (Fig 3a). Defining a high mfin 1,5 0,8 1,0 =0,9 1,2 2,0 Yields and total biomass 0,4 Yields and total biomass 1,5 0,8 1,0 =0,6 1,2 mfin Yields and total biomass 2,0 mfin =0,3 1,2 effort reactivity implies a rapid response of the outside effort to the regional effort evolution. Thus, for a total effort decreasing by reference to the current situation (ftot<1), the relative part of the regional effort will increase faster and generate higher yields for a higher reactivity because the outside effort decreases faster. By contrast, when the total effort increases (ftot>1), the outside effort increases faster relatively to the regional effort and enables to maintain relatively high yields in the case of a higher reactivity. 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 f tot (a) 1,5 2,0 1,5 0,8 1,0 0,4 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 f tot (b) 1,5 2,0 =2 1,2 2,0 1,5 0,8 1,0 mfin 2,0 Yields and total biomass 0,4 Yields and total biomass 1,5 0,8 1,0 =1 1,2 mfin Yields and total biomass 2,0 mfin =0 1,2 0,4 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 f tot (c) Fig. 3. Production curves for the total fleet (thick solid line) in relation to the total effort applied for different values of (see for details in text). Total fleet is composed of a regional fleet (thin solid line) and an outside fleet (dashed line). Line with triangles represents the regional fishing effort in relation to the total effort and line with circles is the total stock biomass. ftot=total fishing effort ; mfin=regional effort multiplier. Discussion A simple model In the simulation model, the dynamics of the stock are modelled by the means of a Fox model (Fox, 1970). Using generalized production models could enable to represent a larger range of possible shapes for the production curves (Pella and Tomlinson, 1969). However, using such models would not have changed the general conclusions of the analysis. Simulations carried out only deal with 2 distinct fisheries although such an over-simplistic case is rarely encountered in real situations. Within a region, various fleets can target the same stock and the evolution of their respective efforts in time might differ greatly. Moreover, the multispecific nature of many fisheries can generate technical interactions that either correspond to congestion or stock externalities (Ulrich et al., 2001). Such interactions are very difficult to quantify and predict because of the fisher’s ability to adapt their effort in a current situation of competitive behaviour among fishing units (Ulrich et al., 2001). Yet, aggregating all the efforts of the vessels targeting a given stock is a common task in fisheries sciences although only a few studies deal with a regional effort. Again, the simplicity of the case study is sufficient to emphasize the potential problems raised by a study that deals at this type of local scale. In a real case, estimating a global effort applied on a stock requires some standardisation analyses according to the gears used. This can be greatly complicated by the quantification of the trends in fishing power (Laurec, 1977 ; Millisher et al., 1999 ; Marchal et al., 2002). Regional contribution in the total effort Reasoning at the scale of a given region to quantify the impact it can have on a targeted stock requires to first define the relative part of the regional effort in the total fishing pressure. Indeed, simulating an increase in the regional fishing effort will poorly affect the state of the stock when the regional part in the total effort is relatively low. This should be notably true for highly migratory and widespread stocks such as mackerel (Scomber scombrus). Moreover, considering the potential evolution of the fishing effort following a management action for instance, implies to include in the analysis the consequences it can have on the other fleets. Indeed, bio-economic models generally focus on the variations of the regional effort by considering the “rest of the world” fixed. This can lead to dangerous results showing that local fisheries will always increase yields when increasing their effort, without any risk of overexploitation (Ulrich, 2000). Competitive behaviour leading to technical interactions (as discussed above) can drive to high variations in the allocation of effort in time. Indeed, many reasons such as technological innovations, variations in some species prices, species abundance and future catch restrictions can drive fishermen to modify the species preferentially targeted (Ulrich et al., 2001 ; Millisher et al., 1999 ; Marchal et al., 2002). This can change the relative contribution of the effort of a given fleet in the total effort. However, for a given stock widely targeted by the region, it seems plausible to consider the total regional effort relatively constant from one year to another in comparison with the rest of the effort applied on the stock. Outside fleet reactivity The parameter quantifies how the outside fleet reacts to a modification in the regional effort and is critical to estimate the implementation of a management scenario at the regional scale. According to its values, the outside effort may display very different evolutions relatively to the regional fishing effort. As a consequence, the stock will not display the same dynamics and this will strongly modify the potential yields for the regional fishery. Because both fleets can be composed of a multitude of fishing fleets targeting the same stock, the estimation of the total regional and outside efforts requires to identify exhaustively the fleets concerned and to have their corresponding effort data. The variability of fishing effort in time associated with fishing strategies and tactics (discussed above) makes very difficult any precise prediction about the values of according to a given management action. Although some global trends may be drawn, the prediction of the evolution in the outside fishing effort is related to numerous factors highly difficult to quantify such as the degree of dependence between the fleets (competition, passive or active cooperation), the rates of transfer of information between the different segments of the fishery and the nature of the stock targeted (degree of clustering). In this perspective, it seems pertinent to define a possible range of values when simulating various scenarios of management for the region. Conclusion Although the simulation model developed appears to be relatively simple in its structure, it aims to point out essential parameters that are necessary to take into account when dealing at a regional scale. Indeed, both issues of the relative contribution of the region in the total fishing effort as well as the behaviour of other fleets will have a consequence on the yields, and eventually the state of the stock targeted. The response of other fleets notably relates to the classic opposition in fisheries economics between the global management of a common resource and the individual strategy of fishermen that mostly act on a short term perspective. In this case, the reactivity parameter should enable to understand the impact on a stock due to regional exploitation in function of different possible fishing behaviours of the outside fleet through various simulations. From age-structured assessments to surplus production models State of the stock Table IV describes the state of the 13 stocks of interest for the Finistère. Because of missing data and biological information for the haddock (VII b-k) and the roundnose grenadier, the state of these stocks is unknown. Table IV. State of the stocks and corresponding source of information. Species Stock Source State of the stock Anglerfish Lophius piscatorius Lophius budegassa Gadus morhua Leucoraja naevus Cancer pagurus Coryphaenoides rupestris Melanogrammus aeglefinus Merluccius merluccius Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Nephrops norvegicus Management area M Management area L Management area N Pollachius virens Merlangius merlangus ICES CM 2003/ACFM:01 ICES CM 2003/ACFM:01 Outside safe biological limits Inside safe biological limits Outside safe biological limits Growth overexploitation Situation of MSY Unknown Unknown Outside safe biological limits Outside safe biological limits Cod Cuckoo ray Edible crab Grenadier Haddock Hake Megrim Norway lobster Saithe Whiting ICES CM 2003/ACFM:03 Heessen, 2003 Ulrich, 2000 ICES CM 2002/ACFM:16 ICES CM 2003/ACFM:03 ICES CM 2003/ACFM:01 ICES CM 2003/ACFM:01 ICES CM 2001/ACFM:16 ICES CM 2001/ACFM:16 ICES CM 2001/ACFM:16 ICES CM 2003/ACFM:02 ICES CM 2003/ACFM:03 Exploited at sustainable levels Exploited at sustainable levels Outside safe biological limits Inside safe biological limits Inside safe biological limits Biological Production functions First, a generalized production model (Pella and Tomlinson, 1969) is fitted to the yield-per-recruit functions when available. This assumes that a surplus production model can well represent a major part of the dynamics estimated through yield-per-recruit assessment. It thus implies that the recruitment is considered independent on the spawners biomass for a large range of fishing intensity and it can then be represented by a mean value, averaging its potential variability due for instance to climatic factors. Equation of the equilibrium production curve is obtained from the differential equation: (6) B m1 dB r B 1 F B K dt where B is the biomass of the stock, r is the intrinsic growth rate, K is the carrying capacity, m is the shape parameter and F is the fishing mortality that can be expressed as a function of the nominal effort (f) and the coefficient of catchability (q) : F=qf. Setting equation (6) to zero gives biomass and yield at equilibrium: (7) 1 m 1 F B K 1 e r 1 F m 1 Ye F Be FK 1 r Fishing mortality is expressed in function of a fishing effort multiplier (mf comprised between 0 and 2) and the current catchability estimated for the situation of reference. The parameters r, K and m are estimated by the least squared method for all the stocks with sufficient available data. Equation (7) is re-expressed as : 1 m 1 q mf B K 1 curr e r q mf Ye qcurr mf 1 curr r (8) 1 m1 The high flexibility of the generalized production model (Pella and Tomlinson, 1969) enables to fit well the yield-per-recruit curves (Fig. 4). Figure 5 shows an example of production curve estimated with the method for the stock of northern hake (Merluccius merluccius). All models were fitted on yield-per-recruit curves estimated by ACFM except the edible crab (Cancer pagurus), the cuckoo ray (Leucoraja naevus) and the roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris). This latter was assessed by pseudo-cohort analysis corrected for changes in fishing effort (Allain, 1999; Lorance et al., 2001). The method requires relatively strong assumptions that question the conclusions (Lorance et al., 2001) but it remains the only available assessment for this species. The stock of cuckoo ray was assessed through the use of a yield-per-recruit model (Chavance, 2001) and the stock of edible crab by a Fox (1970) model by Ulrich (2000). This latter model mathematically corresponds to the generalized production model when the shape parameter tends to 1. It is expressed as: (9) dB ln B r B 1 F B dt ln K Except the trivial null solution, the equilibrium solution for (9) is: Be K e ln K F r As for the generalized model, the biomass and catches can thus be expressed in function of a fishing mortality multiplier (mF) because the catchability is unknown: (10) ln K mF r B K e e ln K Y q mF K e r curr e mF All exploitation and population parameters estimated are given in appendix 4 and 5. Production models were not estimated for some stocks of Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) because required information is currently not available. Yields at equilibrium (kg) 6,E+04 5,E+04 3,E+04 Y=Y/R * Rprev 2,E+04 Generalized model 0,E+00 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 Fishing mortality (mF) Fig. 4. Equilibrium curve of a generalized production model fitted to a series of yields estimated through yield-per-recruit assessment for the northern hake (Merluccius merluccius). Biomass at equilibrium (tons) 2,E+06 1,E+06 8,E+05 4,E+05 0,E+00 0,E+00 2,E+04 4,E+04 6,E+04 Yields at equilibrium (tons) Fig. 5. Plots of the biomass at equilibrium of the northern hake (Merluccius merluccius) in relation with the corresponding yields at equilibrium. Biomasses and yields are estimated by fitting a generalized production model to a series of yield-per-recruit for a range of fishing mortality. Modelling variability in biological production functions The following text is the abstract of a paper submitted to the journal ‘Aquatic Living Resources’. Although the article mainly deals with theoretical ecology, the approach presented will be used in the next steps of the PECHDEV project. Indeed, the objective is to define alternative biological production functions for some stocks according to the biomass of their preys and predators within the ecosystem considered. This approach should be applied in the Celtic Sea ‘Ecosystem Fishery Unit’ for some fish species of major economic importance for the Finistère. Abstract A simulation model is developed in order to analyse the variability of production functions in a virtual exploited ecosystem. We assume that a complex food web can be represented by a set of trophic classes interacting by predation. Each class is given a model of recruitment, growth, survival, catch and a function of trophic preference. Preys are selected according to their abundance in the system and the function of trophic preference of predator classes estimated in the virgin situation. A parameter of food consumption per unit biomass defines the magnitude of foraging of each trophic class. The fishery mainly targets high trophic levels following a given function of selectivity. Some major features of the ecosystem functioning are tested by simulations: the intensity of top-down and bottom-up controls and the degree of trophic opportunism. Results show that production functions are highly dependent on the predation parameters and vary differently according to trophic level. Fishing activity modifies the biomass distribution and strongly affects high trophic levels which are very sensitive to exploitation. Trophic dynamics within the system are thus altered through the rates of predation mortality. In systems where predation mortality is high, top-down control predominates so that fishing affects all the components of the food web. These “fishing controlled” systems display compensatory mechanisms by release from predation control. We also show that systems where productivity is dependent on prey abundance are more “environment controlled” and seem more sensitive to overexploitation, particularly in the high trophic levels. Trophic opportunism tends to dampen the propagation of top-down or bottom-up controls through the food web and thus stabilizes the ecosystem. Trophic relationships are thus essential factors of the ecosystems that determine their production and reaction capacity to exploitation. A major key in ecosystem approach lies in their routine analysis. Application to other regions The French fishery sector Introduction Within the PECHDEV project, the French fishery sector and more particularly the fish production sub-sector is chosen as a first case of application of the Computable General Equilibrium Model (CGEM) to real data. The French fish production is arbitrarily separated between a gadoid group and a ‘others’ group that gathers all remaining landed species. This enables to deal with the problem of overexploitation of most of the Gadidae species in the Northeast Atlantic. First, parameters of surplus production models in the form of Fox models (Fox, 1970) are estimated following an empirical approach presented and based on catch data time-series. In a second step, a biological production function to implement in the Computable General Equilibrium Model (CGEM) is proposed and allows to take account for the reactivity of foreign fleets regarding a variation in the French fishing effort targeting a given group. Three different scenarios of reactivity are considered and drive to 3 different sets of parameters for the biological production functions of the 2 “stocks” of interest. Estimating biological production functions The surplus production model of Fox (Fox, 1970) is selected in the analysis and can be expressed as: dB K g ( B) FB r B ln FB dt B (1) where g is the growth function of the stock, F is the fishing mortality applied on the stock, r is the intrinsic growth rate parameter and K is the carrying capacity i.e., the maximal biomass sustained by the environment. In order to estimate the parameters of the biological production functions for the gadoid and ‘others’ groups, the parameters of the Fox model are re-expressed in function of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and the corresponding fishing mortality (FMSY): MSY e K FMSY r F MSY (2) This parameterisation enables to express the yield and biomass at equilibrium following equation (3): FMSY F Be MSY e FMSY FMSY F MSY e FMSY e Ye F FMSY (3) Some strong assumptions are made in order to approximate the biological production functions of the fish groups from time-series of catch data. Considering that fishing effort has slowly increased in Northwest Atlantic, we first assume that catch time-series data approximately follow equilibrium catches. We thus consider that the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) corresponds to the maximum of mean catch for a few years observed in the time-series data. It is then directly given by the data. We then assume that the mean yield for the groups estimated on the last few years of data considered is at equilibrium (Ycurr). We finally assume that the fishing mortality is equal to the natural mortality (M) affecting the stock in the situation of MSY (Garcia et al., 1989). We assume a natural mortality of 0.2 for the gadoid group and of 0.4 for the ‘others’ group. Considering equation 3 in the current situation allows to estimate Fcurr from solving equation 4: (4) Ycurr Fcurr e K Fcu rr r Application to the gadoid and ‘others’ groups Total catches The approach assumes that the gadoid and ‘others’ stocks are unique in the Northeast Atlantic. The set of Gadidae species landed in France is selected as gadoid group (Appendix 1). The blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) is excluded of the group because it corresponds to a recent fishery that extended rapidly in the last decade. Therefore, the blue whiting landings have increased whereas the aim of the analysis is to evaluate the impact of the overexploitation of Gadidae species. Plotting the catch of the gadoid group versus time shows a strong decrease that began in the middle of the 70s, following the famous ‘gadoid outburst’ of the 60s and 70s (Hislop, 1996). 4.E+06 Catches (Tons) Pollachius virens 3.E+06 Molva molva Merluccius merluccius 2.E+06 Merlangius merlangus 1.E+06 Melanogrammus aeglefinus 0.E+00 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Gadus morhua Years Fig. 1. Total catches of the gadoid group in the Northeast Atlantic (Source: FAO). Only main species are given in legend. The ‘others’ group includes all other species landed in France except all aquatic plants. This group displays 154 species or species groups (Appendix 2). Figure 2 shows a global increasing trend in the catches since the 50s. We assume in the analysis that the catch of the ‘others’ group are nowadays at the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). Sprattus sprattus 1.E+07 Catches (Tons) Scomber scombrus 8.E+06 Micromesistius poutassou 5.E+06 Mallotus villosus 3.E+06 Clupea harengus 0.E+00 1950 1960 1970 1980 Years 1990 2000 Ammodytes spp Fig. 2. Total catches on the gadoid group in the Northeast Atlantic (Source: FAO). Only main species are given in legend. Exploitation parameters From the time-series of catch data provided by the FAO2, the parameters of the gadoid and ‘others’ groups can be estimated following the method presented above (Table I). Table I. Parameters of the biological production models for the gadoid and ‘others’ groups. r K MSY FMSY Y curr B curr F curr 0.2 48547829 3571950 0.2 1725632 3157205 0.55 0.4 60293405.1 8872282 0.4 8872282 22180704 0.4 Gadidae Others Regional Production Model (RPM) Model and assumptions In the CGEM applied to the French fishery sector, the French yield (Yin) is estimated within the economic sub-module. However, no data is provided regarding the fishing effort applied to the same stock by foreign fleets. This requires that assumptions are made on the fishing behaviour of these fleets. In this perspective, a power type function linking the effort multipliers between French and foreign fleets is assumed (Equation 5). This enables to simulate different fishing behaviours between the two fleets. Fout F curr out (5) Fin curr F in where F is the fishing mortality, out indicates the foreign fleets (other than French), curr indicates the current situation, in indicates the French fleet and is the reactivity parameter. In the current situation, the French catch represent a relative part () of the total catch : Yincurr Fincurr curr curr Ftot Ytot curr curr Yout Fout 1 Y curr F curr out tot (6) (7) 2 Fincurr curr 1 Fout Ytot Yin Yout FAO. 2000. Fisheries Department, Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit. Fishstat Plus: Universal software for fishery statistical time series Version 2.3. Ytot Fin B Fout B Ytot Fin B F curr out Fin B curr Fin 1 F curr Fin Ytot Fin B 1 out F curr F curr 1 in in (8) Ytot 1 1 Y B curr in Yin 1 curr B Yin Equation (8) can be included in the biological equations approximated in the CGEM as: (9) Bt 1 Bt g ( Bt ) Yt 1 with 1 Y t Bt 1 B curr Yincurr where B is the biomass of the stock, t is the time step in the model (year), g is the growth function of the stock (equation1), Y is the yield estimated in the economic sub-module of the CGEM, is a constant parameter and is the reactivity parameter. Values of are 6.0% for the Gadoids and 3.6% for the ‘others’ group respectively. Simulation scenarios We propose to simulate 3 different scenarios of reactivity to illustrate the potential range of responses of the stock to fishing exploitation (Table II). The example of subventions from the European Union is chosen for illustration purpose: - - =1, foreign fleets exactly follow the variation in effort allocation of the French fleet. This can represent situations in which European policy is similar for all the European fleets: subventions for the exit of fishing vessels concerning all European countries. =0.5, variations in foreign fleets efforts are slower than variations in French fishing effort representing a case of difference in the magnitude of the subvention. =0, foreign fleets do not modify their fishing effort i.e., the foreign fishing mortality remains constant whatever the variations in French effort allocation. This can simulate cases of subvention concerning only 1 given region or country in the EU. Table II. Values of the parameter of equation (9) according to the different values of . 0 0.5 1 Gadoids 0.51 2.84 15.74 Others 0.39 3.21 26.69 Conclusion The approach presented to estimate biological production functions lies on really strong assumptions certainly not verified for the 2 groups of interest. However, the aim of the present study is not to conduct new stock assessments but only to give an order of magnitude for the production functions. The application of a CGEM to the fishery sector is original from an economic point of view because this type of modelling has never been applied to real data in this sector. It is also in complete rupture with traditional bio-economic approaches because i) the yield is estimated through economic equations including capital and labour explicitly and does not require the estimation of a fishing effort ii) the biological module describing the stock dynamics is thus separated from the economic module iii) the model can take account for the fishing strategies of other fleets harvesting on the same stock as the fleet of interest. Finistère and Salerno cases The most important species in terms of tonnage and value selected for all the PECHDEV regions are given in appendix 3. The methodology presented above allowed us to estimate population and exploitation parameters for the cases of Finistère and Salerno (Tables VI-IX). For the Salerno case, when no age-structured stock assessment was available, empirical production functions following the method presented for the French fishery sector were estimated. Appendix 4 gives the relative part of Salerno catch on the total catch harvested by the Salerno fleets. This approach should also be conducted for the stocks of Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in the Celtic Sea for the Finistère case. Table VI. Exploitation parameters estimated for the stocks selected for the Finistère case. Scientific name ICES subdivisions VIII a, b (MA N) Merluccius merluccius III a, IV, VI, VII, VIII a, b, d Cancer pagurus Stock France Cancer pagurus Stock United Kingdom Lophius piscatorius VII, VIII a, b Lophius budegassa VII, VIII a, b Gadus morhua VII e, f, g, h, j, k Merlangius merlangus VII e, f, g, h, j, k Melanogrammus aeglefinus VII b, c, d, e, f, g, h, j, k Nephrops norvegicus VII, f, g, h (MA M) Nephrops norvegicus VII b, c, j, k (MA L) Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis VII, VIII a, b, d, e Leucoraja naevus one unique stock Pollachius virens III a, IV, VI a, b Coryphaenoides rupestris V b, VI, VII Nephrops norvegicus q curr 0,366 0,240 N#A N#A 0,244 0,183 0,640 0,316 0,317 N#A N#A 0,236 0,215 0,229 0,068 F curr Ye (Tons) 0,5220 3 123 0,2849 45 360 1,443 3 844 1,443 5 259 0,2944 16 771 0,2425 6 986 1,0142 5 920 0,6251 16 806 0,4741 7 569 N#A N#A N#A N#A 0,2473 16 673 0,4000 5 695 0,4495 119 130 0,1045 8 090 Table VII. Population parameters estimated for the stocks selected for the Finistère case. Scientific name ICES subdivisions VIII a, b (MA N) Merluccius merluccius III a, IV, VI, VII, VIII a, b, d Cancer pagurus Stock France Cancer pagurus Stock United Kingdom Lophius piscatorius VII, VIII a, b Lophius budegassa VII, VIII a, b Gadus morhua VII e, f, g, h, j, k Merlangius merlangus VII e, f, g, h, j, k Melanogrammus aeglefinus VII b, c, d, e, f, g, h, j, k Nephrops norvegicus VII, f, g, h (MA M) Nephrops norvegicus VII b, c, j, k (MA L) Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis VII, VIII a, b, d, e Leucoraja naevus one unique stock Pollachius virens III a, IV, VI a, b Coryphaenoides rupestris V b, VI, VII Nephrops norvegicus r -0,108 -0,159 12,822 13,274 -0,062 -0,096 -0,126 -0,072 -0,288 N#A N#A -0,128 -0,233 -0,053 -0,021 K (Tons) 84 786 1 284 398 7 242 9 908 1 219 609 288 029 208 575 357 662 89 125 N#A N#A 458 632 100 000 5 896 535 578 293 m 0,349 0,519 1 1 0,444 0,471 0,421 0,115 0,436 N#A N#A 0,442 0,508 0,314 0,085 Table VIII. Population parameters estimated for the stocks selected for the Salerno case. Scientific name Sub-areas Aristaemorpha foliacea G5 operational unit Aristeus antennatus G5 operational unit Engraulis encrasicolus Sardinia Merluccius merluccius G5 operational unit Mullus barbatus G5 operational unit Mullus surmuletus Sardinia Nephrops norvegicus Sardinia Octopus vulgaris Sardinia Others Sardinia Parapaeneus longirostris G5 operational unit Sardina pilchardus Sardinia Sepia officinalis Sardinia Squilla mantis Sardinia Thunnus thynnus East Atl. & Mediterranean r K (Tons) -0.38 25 -0.30 10 0.84 75794 -0.70 500 -0.38 150 0.2 2433 0.18 15163 0.25 38441 0.4 338063 -0.34 50 0.22 296426 0.25 1207 1.41 1902 0.36 297271 m 0.295 0.137 1 0.555 0.201 1 1 1 1 0.329 1 1 1 1 Table VIII. Exploitation parameters estimated for the stocks selected for the Salerno case. Scientific name Sub-areas F curr Ycurr B curr Thunnus thynnus G5 operational unit area 0.72 28959 40282 Sepia officinalis G5 operational unit area 0.47 322 690 Octopus vulgaris Sardinia 0.39 3158 8130 Aristaemorpha foliacea G5 operational unit area 0.48 3.5 15 Aristeus antennatus G5 operational unit area 0.66 1.9 6 Parapaeneus longirostris Sardinia 1.02 9.2 20 Mullus barbatus Sardinia 1.46 29.2 48 Squilla mantis Sardinia 3.90 465 119 Engraulis encrasicolus Sardinia 3.02 6414 2127 Merluccius merluccius G5 operational unit area 0.93 57 131 Nephrops norvegicus Sardinia 0.55 387 704 Sardina pilchardus Sardinia 0.78 6575 8379 Mullus surmuletus Sardinia 0.2 179 895 Others East Atl. & Mediterranean 0.4 49747 124366 Perspectives The estimation of biological production functions should be done for all the stocks selected by each region of the PECHDEV project. In the case of Salerno, some uncertainty lies on the areas of definition of the stocks targeted. Therefore, it could be interesting to test different hypotheses defining alternative biological production functions for the stocks for which some uncertainty exists. The effects of these alternative hypotheses on the outputs of the CGEM would be interesting to analyse. Besides, production functions based on age-structured data assume a recruitment fluctuating around a mean value. However, the decrease in spawning stock biomass can generate recruitment overexploitation and sometimes imply the collapse and eventually the extinction of a given fish stock. An approach based on the reference points defined by the assessments working groups such as Blim (biomass limit) or Bpa (biomass of precautionary approach) when they are available could enable to complete the functions estimated in the case of high fishing pressure. References Allain, V. 1999. Ecologie, biologie et exploitation des populations de poissons profonds de l'Atlantique du NordEst. Thèse de doctorat de l'Université de Bretagne Occidentale. Spécialité Océanologie biologique. Chassot, E., Gascuel, D., and Laurans, M. 2002. Typology and characterization of European “Ecosystem Fisheries Units”. ICES CM 2002/L:19 17p. Chavance, N. P. 2001. Analyse de l'exploitation et évaluation du stock de raie fleurie (Raja naevus) en Mer Celtique et dans le Golfe de Gascogne. FAO. 2000. Fisheries Department, Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit. Fishstat Plus: Universal software for fishery statistical time series Version 2.3. Fox, W.W.Jr. 1970. An exponential surplus yield model for optimizing exploited fish populations. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 99 (1). Garcia, S., P. Sparre and J. Csirke. 1989. Estimating surplus production and maximum sustainable yield from biomass data when catch and effort time series are not available. Fisheries Research. 8:13-23. Guitton, J., Dintheer, C., Dunn, M., Morizur, Y., and Têtard, A. 2003. Atlas des pêcheries de la Manche. IFREMER, 216p. Heessen, H.J.L. 2003. Development of Elasmobranch Assessments (DELASS). Final Report. DG Fish Study Contract 99/055, 603p. Hislop, J.R.G. 1996. Changes in North Sea gadoid stocks. ICES Journal of Marine Science 53: 1146-1156. ICES 2001. Report of the Working Group on Nephrops Stocks. ICES CM 2001/ACFM:16. ICES 2003. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak. ICES CM 2003/ACFM:02. ICES 2003. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Demersal Stocks. ICES CM 2003/ACFM:03 . ICES 2003. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Stocks of Hake, Monk, and Megrim. ICES CM 2003/ACFM:01. ICES 2002. Report of the Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-Sea Fisheries Resources. ICES CM 2002/ACFM:16. Laurec, A. 1977. Analyse et estimation des puissances de pêche. J. Cons. int. Explor. Mer 37 (2): 173-185. Laurec, A. and Le Guen, J.-C. 1981. Dynamique des populations marines exploitées. Tome 1, Concepts et modèles. Publications du CNEXO. Rapports scientifiques et techniques n°45, 118p. Lleonart, J. and Maynou, F. 2003. Fish stock assessments in the Mediterranean: state of the art. Scientia Marina 67 (Suppl. 1): 37-49. Lorance, P., Dupouy, H., and Allain, V. 2001. Assessement of the roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) stock in the Rockall Trough and neighbouring areas (ICES Subareas V-VII). Fisheries Research 51 (2-3): 151-163. Marchal, P., Ulrich, C., Korsbrekke, K., Pastoors, M., and Rackham, B. 2002. A comparison of three indices of fishing power on some demersal fisheries of the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: 604-623. Millisher, L., Gascuel, D., and Biseau, A. 1999. Estimation of the overall fishing power: A study of the dynamics and fishing strategies of Brittany's industrial fleets. Aquatic Living Resources 12 (2): 89-103. Pella, J.J. and Tomlinson, P.K. 1969. A Generalized Stock Production Model. Bull. Int. Amer. Trop. Tuna. Comm. 13: 420-496. Ulrich, C. 2000. Modélisation multi-flottilles et multi-métiers des pêcheries artisanales de la Manche. Evaluation plurispécifique des stocks, étude des interactions techniques et intégration dans la modélisation bioéconomique. Thèse pour l'obtention du diplôme de Docteur de l'ENSAR, mention Halieutique. Ulrich, C., Gascuel, D., Dunn, M.R., Le Gallic, B., and Dintheer, C. 2001. Estimation of technical interactions due to the competition for resource in a mixed-species fishery, and the typology of fleets and métiers in the English Channel. Aquatic Living Resources 14: 267-281. Appendix Appendix 1. List of Gadidae species selected in the gadoid group for the French fishery sector. Scientific name Brosme brosme Coryphaenoides rupestris Gadiformes Gadus morhua Gaidropsarus spp Macrourus berglax Melanogrammus aeglefinus Merlangius merlangus Merluccius merluccius Molva dypterygia Molva molva Moridae Phycis blennoides Pollachius pollachius Pollachius virens Trisopterus luscus English name Tusk Roundnose grenadier Gadiformes Cod Rocklings Roughhead grenadier Haddock Whiting Hake Blue ling Ling Moras Greater forkbeard Pollack Saithe Pouting Appendix 2. List of species selected in the ‘others’ group for the French fishery sector. Scientific names Acipenseridae Aequipecten opercularis Alopias vulpinus Alosa alosa Alosa fallax Alosa spp Ammodytes spp Anarhichas lupus Anguilla anguilla Aphanopus carbo Apogonidae Argentina spp Argyrosomus regius Atherinidae Balistes carolinensis Belone belone Beryx spp Bivalvia Boops boops Brachyura Brama brama Buccinum undatum Cancer pagurus Carcinus maenas Centroscyllium fabricii Cerastoderma edule Cetorhinus maximus Chamelea gallina Clupea harengus Clupeoidei Conger conger Crangon crangon Crassostrea gigas Crustacea Dasyatis spp Dicentrarchus labrax Dicentrarchus punctatus Dicologlossa cuneata Diplodus sargus Donax spp Elasmobranchii Engraulis encrasicolus Epigonus telescopus Epinephelus marginatus Galatheidae Galeorhinus galeus Gastropoda Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Haliotis tuberculata Helicolenus dactylopterus Hippoglossoides platessoides Scientific names Hydrolagus spp Illex coindetii Labridae Lamna nasus Lepas spp Lepidopus caudatus Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Limanda limanda Lithognathus mormyrus Littorina spp Loliginidae, Ommastrephidae Lophius piscatorius Maja squinado Mallotus villosus Microchirus spp Micromesistius poutassou Microstomus kitt Mollusca Mugilidae Mullus surmuletus Mustelus spp Myliobatidae Mytilidae Mytilus edulis Natantia Nephrops norvegicus Octopodidae Osmerus eperlanus Osteichthyes Ostrea edulis Pagellus acarne Pagellus bogaraveo Pagellus erythrinus Pagrus pagrus Palaemon serratus Palinurus elephas Palinurus mauritanicus Palinurus spp Pandalus borealis Paracentrotus lividus Pecten maximus Pectinidae Petromyzon marinus Platichthys flesus Pleuronectes platessa Pleuronectiformes Polyprion americanus Portunus spp Prionace glauca Psetta maxima Raja batis Scientific names Raja microocellata Raja montagui Raja naevus Raja oxyrinchus Raja spp Reinhardtius hippoglossoides Ruditapes decussatus Salmo salar Salmo trutta Salmonoidei Sarda sarda Sardina pilchardus Sarpa salpa Scomber japonicus Scomber scombrus Scombridae Scophthalmus rhombus Scorpaenidae Scyliorhinus canicula Scyliorhinus spp Scyliorhinus stellaris Sebastes spp Sepiidae, Sepiolidae Solea lascaris Solea solea Soleidae Sparidae Sparus aurata Spisula solida Spondyliosoma cantharus Sprattus sprattus Squalidae Squalus acanthias Squatinidae Thunnus alalunga Thunnus obesus Thunnus thynnus Torpedo spp Trachinus draco Trachurus trachurus Triglidae Umbrina canariensis Veneridae Venerupis pullastra Xiphias gladius Zeus faber Hippoglossus hippoglossus Homarus gammarus Hoplostethus atlanticus Raja circularis Raja clavata Raja fullonica Appendix 3. List of the species selected for each region of interest for the PECHDEV project. Region Salerno Scientific name Aristaemorpha foliacea Aristeus antennatus Engraulis encrasicolus Merluccius merluccius Mullus barbatus Mullus surmuletus Nephrops norvegicus Octopus vulgaris Parapaeneus longirostris Sardina pilchardus Sepia officinalis Squilla mantis Thunnus thynnus Cornwall Cancer pagurus Lepidorhombus Whiffiagonis Lophiidae Merlucciidae Microstomus kitt Pectinidae Pollachius pollachius Scombridae Scophtalmus maximus Soleidae Finistère Cancer pagurus Coryphaenoides rupestris Gadus morhua Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis Leucoraja naevus Lophius budegassa Lophius piscatorius Melanogrammus aeglefinus Merlangius merlangus Merluccius merluccius Nephrops norvegicus English name Giant red shrimp Blue and red shrimp European anchovy European hake Striped mullet Red mullet Norway lobster Common octopus Deepwater rose shrimp European pilchard Common cuttlefish Spottail mantis squillid Northern bluefin tuna Crabs Megrim Monks Hake Lemon sole Scallops Pollack Mackerel Turbot Sole Edible crab Grenadier Atlantic cod Megrim Cuckoo ray Anglerfish Anglerfish Haddock Whiting European hake Norway Regional name Gamberi rossi Gamberi rossi Alici Naselli Triglia di fango Triglia di scoglio Scampi Polpi Gamberi bianchi Sardine Seppie Pannochie Tonno rosso Crabs Megrim Monks Hake Lemon sole Scallops Pollack Mackerel Turbot Sole Tourteau Grenadier Morue Cardine Raie fleurie Baudroie rousse Baudroie commune Eglefin Merlan Merlu Langoustine Pollachius virens Bornholm Gadus morhua Pandalus borealis Pleuronectes platessa Salmo salar Sprattus sprattus Saithe Cod Northern prawn Plaice Salmon Sprat Lieu noir Torsk Rejer Rotspatte Laks Brisling Appendix 3 (end). List of the species selected for each region of interest for the PECHDEV project.. Region Scientific name Pontevedra Cerastoderma edule Conger conger Hippoglossus hippoglossus Lepidorhombus boscii Lophius budegassa Merluccius merluccius Micromesistius poutassou Mytilus Galloprovincialis Nephrops Norvegicus Octopus Vulgaris Pollicipies cornucopiae Psetta maxima Sardina pilchardus Scomber scombrus Thunnus alalunga Todaropsis eblanae Trachurus trachurus Venerupis pulastra Xiphias gladius English name Common edible cockle Conger eel Atlantic halibut Megrim Black bellied angler Hake Blue whiting Mussel Norway lobster Common octopus Barnacle Turbot European pilchard Atlantic mackerel Albacore Lesses flying squid Horse mackerel Carpet shell Swordfish Regional name Berbercho Congrio Fletan Gallo Rape Merluza Lirio Mejillón Cigala Pulpo Percebe Rodaballo Sardina Caballa Bonito Pota costera Jurel Almeja Pez espada Appendix 4. Relative proportion of Salerno catch in the total catch for each stock targeted. Scientific name Aristaemorpha foliacea Aristeus antennatus Engraulis encrasicolus Merluccius merluccius Mullus barbatus Mullus surmuletus Nephrops norvegicus Octopus vulgaris Others Parapaeneus longirotris Sardina pilchardus Sepia officinalis Squilla mantis Thunnus thynnus Sub-areas Salerno relative part G5 operational unit 100% G5 operational unit 100% Sardinia 3% G5 operational unit 100% G5 operational unit 100% Sardinia 3% Sardinia 100% Sardinia 6% Sardinia 5% G5 operational unit 100% Sardinia 2% Sardinia 24% Sardinia 34% East Atl. & Mediterranean 9%
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz