Environmental benefits resulting from certification against MSC's Principles \u0026 Criteria for Sustainable Fishing

Environmental benefits resulting from certification against MSC’s Principles & Criteria for Sustainable Fishing

FINAL REPORT

for Phase 1 of 2 to create a system of tracking environmental benefits of certification against

MSC’s Principles & Criteria for Sustainable Fishing

By

David Agnew1, Chris Grieve2, Pia Orr1, Graeme Parkes1 and Nola Barker3

4 May 2006

1 Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd, UK

2 Meridian Prime Ltd, UK 3Marine Stewardship Council

Citation: Agnew, D., C. Grieve, P. Orr, G. Parkes and N. Barker (2006) Environmental benefits resulting from certification against MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. MRAG UK Ltd and Marine Stewardship Council, London. 134 pp. © Marine Stewardship Council & MRAG UK, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

2 INTRODUCTION 8

3 METHODOLOGY 10 3.1 Types of approach – background considerations 10 3.2 Questions to be answered 11 3.3 Categorisation 12

4 RESULTS 14 4.1 Candidate fisheries 14 4.2 Trends in environmental gains 15

5 CONCLUSIONS 22 5.1 Are there environmental benefits? 22 5.2 The major lessons of this analysis are: 27 5.3 Next steps ~ further work 28

6 ANNEX 1: MAIN ANALYSIS TABLE 30

7 ANNEX 2: FISHERY CASE STUDIES 41 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ROCK LOBSTER FISHERY 42 THAMES HERRING DRIFT-NET FISHERY 58 ALASKA SALMON FISHERY 67 BURRY INLET COCKLE FISHERY 76 NEW ZEALAND HOKI FISHERY 81 SOUTH WEST MACKEREL HANDLINE FISHERY 92 SOUTH GEORGIA TOOTHFISH LONGLINE FISHERY 96 LOCH TORRIDON NEPHROPS CREEL FISHERY 111 SOUTH AFRICAN HAKE FISHERY 117 MEXICAN BAJA CALIFORNIA RED ROCK LOBSTER FISHERY 130

1 Executive Summary The MSC, jointly with a team of fisheries researchers from MRAG UK Ltd3, has created a two-phase project aimed at developing a long term strategic framework for monitoring and evaluating the environmental benefits arising from the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification programme. This study focussed specifically on the first phase of the work:

1) developing tools and methodologies to measure the environmental or ecological impacts of certification to the MSC standard; and

2) cataloguing and assessing current evidence that the MSC eco-labelling programme results in positive outcomes (benefits) for the environment.

The project team embarked upon the study asking a number of critical questions. Are there meaningful and measurable changes happening on, or in, the water? Are the fisheries that have been certified really changing practices and will these lead to positive outcomes for the environment? Does certification cause more environmental gain than would otherwise occur? And finally, is there an ecological case for fishery certification? The study examined the ten certified fisheries that, by late 2005, had been the subject of at least one post certification audit. In the ten fisheries, a total of 62 certification conditions were examined to determine whether changes or improvements observed would 1) ultimately lead to environmental improvement and 2) lend themselves to quantitative analysis. The project team identified environmental gain indices for each certification condition in the study group. Detailed investigation, looking specifically for quantitative indicators of change, was made on a sub-set of six fisheries. The project team categorised the gains according to five different levels of environmental gain: o No-gain to signal those circumstances where satisfying a certification condition could

reasonably have been expected to result in an environmental gain but such a gain did not result or where satisfying a condition merely required the provision of information to the certification body.

o Institutional gain to denote changes to institutions and processes involved in fisheries management that could lead to environmental gains, including to the way that those institutions do business, the way they define the fisheries management systems, the data they require from the fishery and its regulations.

o Research gain for new research that should lead to environmental gains if implemented by management, such as on any aspect of the target stock, environment or management system.

o Operational – action gain for activities in the fishery such as new discard regulations, mesh regulations or bycatch mitigation methods that are expected to lead to environmental gains.

o Operational – result gain for real, ‘on the water’ outcomes or results of actions, such as reduced numbers of discards, continued absence of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing vessels, demonstrated return to sustainability of bycatch species, recovering benthic diversity in protected or closed areas that have resulted in environmental gains.

Finally the team examined whether the gain was caused primarily by certification (i.e. satisfying the requirements of the condition); whether it was ongoing anyway, and was not a direct consequence of certification, even though it may have been coincidental; or whether it was a combination of the two.

3 Marine Resources Assessment Group, UK

The results of the analysis identified a total of 89 environmental gains over the ten fisheries. There were eight instances of no-gain identified. Sixteen of the gains were operational result gains, which in the project team’s view, represent the most desirable gains and demonstrate real improvements in controlling the impact of fisheries on the environment: 11 arose directly from a condition, and 5 did not appear to be directly related to a condition. Of the 11 that arose directly from a condition, 8 were judged to be most likely stimulated or partially stimulated by the certification process itself; and for three, the certification process could not be identified as the primary catalyst.

Summary of environmental gains & no-gains from certification conditions

No-gain, 8

Institutional, 29

Research, 27

Operational-action, 17

Operational-result, 16

Operational result gains were not as common as other gains: they represented 18% of the total gains that were identified. However, most of the result gains were supported by quantitative evidence. Taking all gains into account, and whether the gain was partially or mostly stimulated by the certification process, it appears that the certification process has stimulated about 65% of the gains observed. In the eight cases of no-gain, some involved situations where the condition was satisfied simply by the provision of additional data to the certification body – in other words no additional work was done, except for filling an information gap. Other cases of no-gain resulted from apparent failures of certification bodies in some of the early certifications to be explicit about the requirement for change. Another case related to the fact that the certification client itself had no control over whether the stock remained above its precautionary reference point. Most of the positive gains were in Principle 24. This is out of proportion to the number of conditions raised: Principle 1(P1) = 26%; Principle 2 (P2) = 37%; and Principle 3 (P3) = 37%, compared to the proportion of gains attributable to P1, P2 and P3 of 17%, 46% and 37% respectively. Since most fisheries actually score lower in their full assessment for Principle 2 than the other principles (roughly 70% of fisheries score lowest on P2) this is the principle in which there is most potential for progress. It is therefore encouraging that that is indeed where most of the progress appears to be being made. The analysis shows that there is a strong positive relationship between the number of conditions and the overall gains realised, and a positive (although not statistically significant) relationship between the number of gains and the length of time the fishery has been certified (i.e., certification date). The analysis also shows the fisheries demonstrating the greatest overall environmental ‘gain score’ could be classified as more difficult or controversial.

4 The MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (known as the MSC standard) are based upon three fundamental elements that contribute to sustainable fisheries: maintaining healthy target fish populations (Principle 1); understanding and maintaining the integrity of marine ecosystems (Principle 2); and implementing effective fisheries management systems (Principle 3).

There is some evidence, although not described in detail in the fishery results, of environmental gains occurring in other unrelated fisheries as a result of certification of a specific fishery in that region. And there appears to be evidence that research and action in one certified fishery can have far reaching effects on both uncertified and certified fisheries on the other side of the world. Although not an objective of the study, the team encountered anecdotal and published evidence of economic and social benefits in three fisheries and reported on this. The team acknowledges that there is probably a great deal more to uncover in each certified fishery in relation to economic and social impacts of MSC certification. The major lessons from the study are that:

o All certified fisheries have shown some environmental gain resulting from the certification process.

o Some environmental gain has resulted in areas where there were no conditions, but in general the biggest gains have been in areas which carried conditions for certification.

o There is a direct relationship between both the amount of gain, and the relative direct benefit of that gain to the environment (expressed as a ‘gain score’), with the number of conditions that are set for a fishery. When the number of conditions is high, the total gains to a fishery appear to be greater than the number of conditions, whereas when they are low the gains are equal to the number of conditions.

o The instances of lack of gain in areas that we would expect to see gain resulted from issues in some of the early certifications, as well as from the difficulty of finding solutions to some very difficult environmental problems. The early certified fisheries show a lower average environmental benefit than the later certified fisheries mainly because the expectations contained in conditions (or corrective action requests as they were called) were not as well articulated as in later certifications.

o If environmental gain outweighs the other strategic objectives of the MSC, certification of difficult fisheries could be encouraged because these are the fisheries in which certification is likely to create the biggest environmental gains.

o It was virtually impossible to create a set of indices that would be equally applicable across certified fisheries for comparative purposes. The only index that comes close is target stock size in relation to target/limit reference points. But not all certified fisheries set target/limit reference points, nor do they have easily interpreted assessments of stock size. This approach should not be precluded in future analyses, but the project team deemed it not to be practical here.

Next steps The initial findings show promising evidence of both quantitative and qualitative environmental benefits which now require critical analysis and peer scrutiny to determine whether the method and the results are robust and credible with the scientific community as well as with the range of MSC stakeholders. While tangible measures showing environmental improvements resulted from the analysis, the project team has expressed caution about causality (i.e., what were the stimuli for change) and other questions arising from the work that should be resolved in phase two. To mark the transition from the first to the second phase, the MSC is planning to host a targeted workshop in 2006 (currently proposed for mid-September 2006) to discuss both the results of the first phase and how to move forward. The MSC has long acknowledged that it needs to develop a plan or framework for long term monitoring and evaluation of changes in fisheries management, environmental gains and other benefits resulting from certification. This idea has now come of age and future MSC work on each of the three major issues contributing to sustainable development (ecological, economic and social) should move ahead strategically and concurrently. Therefore the main objective of the workshop will be broader than simply looking at the environmental benefits question. The main objective is to contribute to the development of a formal “Monitoring and Evaluation Plan” for the impacts of the MSC programme from environmental, economic and social perspectives. Conclusions that emerge from the

workshop will then be used by the MSC to determine 1) the highest priority needs; 2) the most appropriate methodologies; and 3) the basis for future research and funding proposals. The conclusions and recommendations from the workshop will also be reported to the MSC Board of Trustees and will form the basis for an agreed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the impacts of the MSC programme from environmental, economic and social Perspectives to be published later in 2006. The full report: “Environmental benefits resulting from certification against MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing” by David Agnew, Chris Grieve, Pia Orr, Graeme Parkes and Nola Barker contains a complete description of the objectives, methods, results and conclusions, including specific examples of environmental gain from some of the fishery case studies. Annexed to the report is a matrix summarising all the certification conditions, the individual indices chosen by fishery / condition and the environmental gains for each of the 10 fisheries in the study group. And finally, also annexed to the full report, the complete fishery case studies are presented, along with detailed quantitative and/or qualitative analysis for each of the 10 fisheries. 4 May 2006

5 Marine Resources Assessment Group, UK

2 Introduction Since the first fishery was certified in early 2000, 15 fisheries, from seven countries, producing approximately 1.8 million tonnes of fish a year, have been certified as meeting the standard set by the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. By the end of February 2006 there were a total of 330 products carrying the MSC label being sold in 26 countries around the world (www.msc.org). The MSC was created out of a desire to realise the dual vision of securing long term supplies of fish for global markets, and creating a viable, alternative tool to help halt or reverse the decline in global fish stocks. The MSC uses a voluntary, market-based policy instrument to pursue this challenging vision – an eco-labelling programme that employs a standard (the Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing) against which fisheries are measured. The standard is based upon three fundamental elements that contribute to sustainable fisheries: maintaining healthy target fish populations; understanding and maintaining the integrity of marine ecosystems; and implementing effective fisheries management systems. Fisheries that pass the standard are certified and operators are eligible for five years to make the claim that their fish products come from a well managed and sustainable fishery. After chain of custody (traceability) requirements are met and certified, operators may be licensed to use the MSC eco-label to differentiate their products in the marketplace from those coming from non-certified fisheries. The MSC programme has never been about certifying perfect fisheries. Given the complexities and uncertainties of managing wild fisheries resources it is questionable whether any fishery might pass a standard that characterises perfection in fisheries management. The MSC does, however, set standards for environmental sustainability, and the MSC certification programme requires independent assessors to use an objective, science-based assessment methodology to determine whether a fishery will pass the standard either conditionally or unconditionally. Fishery client organisations are expected to meet any certification conditions within the timeframes specified by the independent certification body. The MSC methodology does not have an inherent expectation that all fisheries must improve their environmental credentials to remain certified for the five year period, unless a specific certification condition requires a higher level of performance. In reality, however, the MSC standards, particularly those relating to the impact of a fishery upon the wider ecosystem, require a practical application of ecosystem management concepts that have been developed and implemented only relatively recently, and are higher than the standards generally adopted by mainstream fisheries management practice. Thus, to date, all certified fisheries have had to commit to meeting conditions of certification defined in the assessment to improve their performance to the ‘unconditional’ pass level. While this does then lead to an expectation of environmental improvement in individual fisheries, the MSC did not, at the time of establishing the certification methodology, establish a structure under which to monitor and evaluate whether environmental improvements are being made in certified fisheries or in the broader fisheries management context. Previous work has suggested that environmental improvements in certified fisheries have been obtained either during the MCS certification process itself or by virtue of being certified, but these analyses have necessarily been dependent largely on qualitative data. External reviews of the MSC in 2003 and 2004 emphasised the need for rigorous and quantitative analysis of the extent to which the MSC’s dual vision is being realised. That is, to ask the questions: does the MSC programme broadly, and fishery certification in particular, lead to positive benefits from an environmental perspective; and, how can this be measured? Unfortunately past reviews aimed at answering these questions have been limited both in scope and by the relatively short time that had elapsed between certification and the study date. However, the first fishery was certified in 2000, the number of certified fisheries continues to grow, and there are five fisheries that are undergoing, or have undergone, re-assessment for a second certification. Across all 15 certified fisheries over 110 certification conditions were specified at the time of original certification. Each of these conditions relates

8

to improving performance in relation to one of the Principles or Criteria and should lead to improved fisheries management (through improved data, research, management processes, etc) and changes that might have a positive impact on the environment itself, and in the longer term have an overall positive effect on fishery and ecosystem health. There is therefore now a much larger dataset to analyse. We embarked upon this study asking a number of critical questions. Are there meaningful and measurable changes happening on, or in, the water? Are the fisheries that have been certified really changing practices and will these lead to positive outcomes for the environment? Does certification cause more environmental gain than would otherwise occur? And finally, is there an ecological case for fishery certification? The formal objective of the study was to examine whether there are benefits for fisheries, from an environmental or ecological perspective, from achieving certification against the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. More specifically our objectives were twofold: 1. To develop tools and methodologies to measure the environmental / ecological impacts of

certification to the MSC standard. 2. To catalogue and assess current evidence that the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

eco-labelling programme results in positive outcomes (benefits) for the environment. This study is the first phase of two planned stages of this work. The MSC’s intention in the longer term is to develop this work further to: o Build a strategic framework for the future analysis of environmental impacts of certification

to the MSC standard and the MSC programme, including recommendations for changes to current MSC methodology where appropriate.

o Investigate evidence that the MSC programme has wider impacts on environmental sustainability of fisheries outside of specifically certified fisheries, and to build an ecological case for certification of fisheries to the MSC standard.

The study examined the ten certified fisheries that, by late 2005, had been the subject of at least one post certification audit. We identified environmental gain indices for all the certification conditions in fisheries in the study group to establish whether there was an environmental gain or not. Detailed investigation, looking specifically for quantitative indicators of change, was made on a sub-set of six fisheries. We categorised the gains into five different levels of environmental gain, including a “no-gain” category, and examined whether the gain was stimulated primarily by certification, whether it was ongoing anyway, and therefore not a direct consequence of certification, or whether it was a combination of the two. This report sets out our methodology, describes the system of categorisation of potential environmental gain, and the analysis design. We report on the results of our analysis – at a meta-level – to determine what, cumulatively, we can say about whether fishery certification leads to measurable and meaningful changes from an environmental/ecological perspective. We then delve deeper and report on individual fishery cases – the stories and analysis underneath the meta-analysis. Finally we discuss our conclusions and recommend the next steps that might be taken to establish a framework for developing a long term MSC Monitoring and Evaluation Plan to assess changes in fisheries management and quantify the ecological benefits resulting from certification against the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.

9

3 Methodology

3.1 Types of approach – background considerations There are several ways one could examine the challenge of detecting environmental gains within MSC certified fisheries, and these are associated with different formulations of the questions to be asked, or more formally the hypotheses that are erected about the incidence of environmental gain. The most basic question that can be asked is: “does the process of certification cause more environmental gain in fisheries than would occur naturally without certification?”. This is an extremely difficult question to answer because the institutional and social processes that cause change in fisheries are also those that attract certification. It is those fisheries that are more environmentally aware, through whatever mechanism, that are more likely to be seeking certification. Furthermore, since certification per se is not aimed at creating environmental gains, but is simply a process of judging fisheries against a standard, on the face of it one should not expect much environmental gain at all. This argument means that in looking for evidence for environmental gain in certified fisheries we should actually look at the pre-assessment process (a confidential process undergone prior to full assessment for certification). In theory, we would expect that all the fisheries that have been certified were performing to the environmental standard set by the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (the Ps & Cs), and needed no further improvement. And that any fisheries that in any way under-performed subsequently failed. To examine evidence for the environmental benefits of certification we would simply examine the serial performance of fisheries through their pre-assessment reports. This is not how certification has actually been working. To date, all certified fisheries have had some certification conditions that either required or recommended changes to the behaviour of the fishery to raise its performance beyond the minimum standard set by the Ps & Cs. Some of these conditions relate to management or institutional concerns, but many relate to concerns about the target stock or of the ecosystem with which the target stock or the fishery interacts. We might therefore naturally expect environmental gains to flow from the actions required to meet these conditions. Our job would therefore appear relatively simple. The most obvious way to go about it would be to examine all the certification reports and scores for all fisheries and look for trends within those scores, treating them as indices of environmental performance. For instance a fishery scoring 70 for Performance Indicator 2A.2.1 in its first certification, might be expected to score 75 at some future point, 80 (the unconditional pass level) and then perhaps stay at 80 over subsequent years6. If post certification surveillance reports provided updated scores for the scoring indicators of certifications this would be a very easy job, although it would still be reliant on the quasi-quantitative/qualitative scoring system. Since surveillance reports do not score fisheries on the indicators that were used in the first certification, we wondered whether perhaps we could use the certification reports themselves, which are completed at 5-year intervals? This might be possible in the future, but there is only one fishery that has had two final reports, at the time of writing, and this is Thames herring. The reports were completed by different certification bodies (SGS & Moody Marine Ltd), with different performance indicators and scoring guideposts and under different certification methodologies (the first as an early test case for the MSC, and the re-assessment under the subsequently adopted and revised methodology). Furthermore, there is concern that as more fisheries are certified, and as the fisheries world in general becomes more environmentally conscious, there might be a certain amount of “target creep” (i.e., incremental changes ratcheting standards upwards) in both scoring and setting performance indicators within

6 For more information about the MSC scoring system see the MSC website and download: http://www.msc.org/assets/docs/fishery_certification/UsingAHP&ECforMSCCert_V2_Sep2005.pdf

10

certifications. Therefore, a strict quantitative comparison of sequential performance indicator scoring is not, nor likely to be, possible. In the absence of a series of existing indices of environmental performance we must create our own. After some consideration we decided that it was virtually impossible to create a set of indices that would be equally applicable across all fisheries for comparative purposes. The only index that comes close, and is usually readily available is target stock size in relation to target/limit reference points. But not all certified fisheries set target/limit reference points, nor do they have easily interpreted assessments of stock size. We make some comments on this method of choosing an index later, but for the most part of our analysis we were unable to use this method. Given the above considerations, we chose not to develop a list of possible environmental gains and indicators and compare certified fisheries against this list. Whilst such an approach may be desirable, and should not be precluded in future analyses, it was deemed not to be practical here. We should, however, be able to create a set of indices that are specific to a fishery, and specific to the certification conditions identified for a fishery. This is the approach that we adopted for our analysis.

3.2 Questions to be answered We have explained above that the most objective question, “does certification cause more environmental gain than would otherwise occur” is practically impossible to answer, particularly quantitatively, with current data sources. We therefore ask a related series of questions, but ones we should be able to answer from the available data. Q1 Can instances of environmental gain be detected in fisheries that have been

certified? Q2 Can instances of environmental gain be attributed directly to the certification process? Q3 a) Are instances of environmental gain restricted to elements related to certification

conditions? b) Can instances of environmental gain in non-condition indices be attributed indirectly to the certification process?

Q1 is relatively easy to answer and it forms the main focus of our report. To answer it we chose to examine those areas of the major certified fisheries which were subject to corrective action requests (CARs), or conditions as they have become known. The reason for making the distinction is that some certification bodies used terminology, such as CAR, that was in common usage in other non-fishery certification processes. A CAR identified a weakness that needed to be addressed rather than making a clear statement of conditionality. In the MSC programme, both terms have the same effect: they are requirements that need to be addressed in order to remain certified. Q2 is difficult to answer, even for those gains resulting directly from certification conditions. Our analysis is based partially on qualitative evidence, such as anecdotal reports from the fishery or from surveillance reports, and partly on quantitative evidence where it exists. Indices derived from quantitative data that show a change point during or soon after certification may reasonably be assumed, if supported by anecdotal reports from the fishery, to have resulted from the process of certification or the requirement of conditions. Q3 is even more difficult to answer, and for this we must rely on anecdotal evidence. However, it is reasonable to assume that there may be some indices that respond positively

11

to certification, in a similar way to that defined for Q2, and for which there is no condition. Similarly, it is reasonable to assume that there may be some features of associated fisheries, for instance those managed by the same authority as the certified fishery, which might reasonably be expected to show some environmental gain resulting from improved management methods or information gained in the certified fishery. The problem arises when we try to tackle this question quantitatively, to re-phrase the question as “how many environmental gains in fishery x or region y were attributable to certification and how many were not” because that requires us to develop an exhaustive list of all possible environmental gains. Whilst this might be theoretically possible, it runs into the same problem as noted above that there is not an easily defined single set of indices which could be used in all fisheries. Our method was as follows: o Choose only those fisheries for which there has been one or more surveillance report. o Identify environmental gain indices for all the conditions for test certified fisheries and

examine data from the fishery, including but not restricted to surveillance reports, to establish whether there has been an environmental gain or not. Detailed investigation, looking specifically for quantitative indicators of change, was made on a subset of fisheries.

o Categorise the gains according to a categorisation explained below reflecting different levels of environmental gain. This categorisation included “no-gain” only in those circumstances where satisfying the condition could reasonably have been expected to result in a gain and such a gain did not result or where satisfying a condition merely required the provision of information to the certification body.

o Examine whether the gain was caused primarily by certification (i.e. satisfying the requirements of the condition); whether it was ongoing anyway, and was not a direct consequence of certification, even though it may have been coincidental; or whether it was a combination of the two.

3.3 Categorisation It can be argued that all improvements in a fishery – be they improved crew safety, the creation of new consultative partnerships between industry and environmental stakeholders, research directed at understanding population dynamics of bycatch species or the reduction in the quantity of discards – are, or should reasonably be expected to flow to, increased environmental gains. But it is clear that whilst the first three of our examples could and should (respectively) result in increased environmental performance, this is not a given. For instance, a safer working environment should allow the crew to focus more on complying with mitigation methods, or requirements of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), than focussing on working in a dangerous environment, but it does not guarantee on its own that this will happen. A new consultative partnership or better research should lead to incorporation of environmental concerns or new target reference points into the management and industry decision making process, but it might not. An actual reduction in discards is almost certainly an environmental gain, in that fewer dead fish are being returned to the sea. One would hope that this resulted from fewer non-target fish being caught, and that therefore this will improve the sustainability of bycatch fish populations, as well as redress the environmental nutrient input imbalance. But it might not. Therefore we need to consider two levels of environmental benefit from such operational change – the reduction itself, and the result. The best of all outcomes would be one in which the change results in a reduction in bycatch species mortality to such an extent that an unsustainable exploitation pattern becomes sustainable for that species. Henderson (2004) recognised some of these issues in his categorisation system for environmental gains in certified fisheries. His categories were

12

1. Process oriented change – changes to the systems or procedures used by management, for example implementing a more accurate method of estimating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, executing an ecological risk assessment or implementing an environmental management strategy.

2. Operational change – direct change to the way the fishery operates, for example implementing a conservation measure to mitigate an ecosystem impact not identified prior to the certification process.

3. Research strategy change– stimulation of research, for example research into trophic interactions, or mapping of complex benthic habitat.

4. Institutional change – changes to the institutions that govern, advise or manage the fishery, for example implementing environmental stakeholder involvement in decision making bodies.

5. Accelerating change – the process of certification can put a spotlight on a particular environmental issue, which is already being addressed, and then accelerate the process of resolving the issue, for example accelerating research into population distributions to allow mitigation of bycatch.

We regard Henderson’s number (5) as relating to the causality of environmental gains, and therefore part of our analysis described in section 3.2. Furthermore, we regard the difference between process and institutional change to be difficult to define. We would regard new rules for accounting for discards to be an institutional change, as would be the creation of a new committee dealing with discards or a new section in a standard stock assessment and advice report on discarding. These are all systems based approaches that should, if they are followed through, lead to or create an environmental gain, but of themselves do not directly result in it. Henderson’s other example, undertaking an ecological risk assessment, we would also interpret as an institutional change – the fact that the management system undertakes it is good, but it does not necessarily lead to an operational change. Our categories therefore are: No-gain – to signal those circumstances where satisfying a certification condition could reasonably have been expected to result in an environmental gain but such a gain did not result or where satisfying a condition merely required the provision of information to the certification body. Institutional – changes to institutions and processes involved in fisheries management that could lead to environmental gains, including to the way that those institutions do business, the way they define the fisheries management systems, the data they require from the fishery and its regulations. Research – new research that should lead to environmental gains if implemented by management, such as on any aspect of the target stock, environment or management system. Operational – action – new activities such as new discard regulations, mesh regulations, mitigation methods etc. that are expected to lead to environmental gains. Operational – result – real downstream results of actions, such as reduced numbers of discards, continued absence of IUU vessels, demonstrated return to sustainability of bycatch species, recovering benthic diversity in protected or closed areas that have resulted in environmental gains. Clearly, from the point of view of examining our questions, whilst institutional and research improvements are fundamental to creating change, one cannot be sure that certification has led to a change until there is a real operational action and preferably until a real result is seen. In our analysis we found that only operational actions and results have really been amenable to quantitative treatment. Wherever possible we have undertaken such quantitative analysis.

13

4 Results

4.1 Candidate fisheries We examined ten fisheries based on their current status and the criterion that they should have had at least one surveillance report completed at the start of our study.

Table 1 Fisheries that meet the criteria (minimum 1 audit) and their status in February 2006, sorted by certification start date. P1 = Principle 1; P2 = Principle 2; P3 = Principle 3.

Name Pre-Assessm’t

Full Assessm’t start date

First Certificate awarded

Number of conditions

No. of audits

In reassessment? Or Re-certification date

Draft reassessment public report

Western Australian rock lobster

1997 Jan 1999 Mar 2000 5 P2 – 5

7 Yes, started Sep 2004

No – Certificate extended to 15 Feb 2006

Thames herring Oct 1997 Mar 1999 Mar 2000 8 P1 – 2 P3 – 6

5 Re-certified December 2005

N/A

Alaska salmon Jul 1999 – Feb 2000

Mar 1999 Sep/Oct 2000

10 P1 – 6 P2 – 2 P3 – 2

4 Yes, started Feb 2005

No

Burry Inlet cockles Mar 2000 Mar 2000 Apr 2001 3 P1 – 1 P2/3 – 2

4 No N/A

New Zealand hoki Nov 2000 Oct 2000 Mar 2001 10 P1 – 3 P2 – 4 P3 – 3

11 Yes, started Mar 2005

Yes – released January 2006

South West handline mackerel

Oct 2000 Mar 2001 Aug 2001 2 P1 – 1 P2 – 1

3 No N/A

South Georgia toothfish

Dec 2000 May 2001 Mar 2004 10 P1 – 2 P2 – 4 P3 – 4

1 No N/A

Loch Torridon nephrops

Mar 1999 Jan 2002 Jan 2003 5 P2 – 1 P3 – 4

3 No N/A

South African hake May 2002 Aug 2002 Apr 2004 7 P1 – 1 P2 – 4 P3 – 2

1 No N/A

Mexican Baja California red rock lobster

2001 Nov 2002 Apr 2004 2 P3 – 2

1 No N/A

Detailed quantitative analysis was undertaken only for Western Australian rock lobster, Thames herring, Alaska salmon, New Zealand hoki, South Georgia toothfish and South African hake. The other fisheries were deemed to be too small, or to have been certified too recently, to warrant detailed analysis.

14

4.2 Trends in environmental gains We identified a total of 89 positive environmental gains over the ten fisheries. In addition, eight instances of no-gain were identified. The full table of gains is given in Annex 1; summary results are provided in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2 Summary of gains (for detail see Annex 1). “Y” under “stimulated” indicates mostly stimulated by certification, “P” indicates partially stimulated by certification, “N” indicates not stimulated by certification: for more detailed analysis see Table 3.

Fishery Required

by condition?

Stimulated by

certification?

No-gain Institution Research Operational

action Operational

result Total gains

Y Y 3 1 1 5

N Y 2 3 3 8

N P 1 1 1 2 5 W. Australian Rock Lobster

N N 1 1 1

Y Y 1 3 3

Y P 1 1

Y N 3 1 1 1 6 Thames herring

N N 1 1

Y Y 3 1 1

Y P 1 1 Alaska Salmon

Y N 1 1 2

Y Y 1 1 2 Burry inlet cockles Y N 1 1

Y Y 1 1 3 2 1 7

Y P 2 1 1 1 5 New Zealand hoki

N N 1 0

Y Y 1 1 SW handline mackerel Y N 1 0

Y Y 2 3 1 1 7

Y P 2 1 2 5

Y N 1 1 1 3 South Georgia Toothfish

N N 1 1 2 4

Y Y 2 1 1 2 6 Loch Torridon Nephrops Y P 1 1

Y Y 1 2 2 5

Y P 2 2 South African Hake

Y N 2 1 1 4 Mexican rock lobster Y Y 2 2

8 29 27 17 16 89 Total 33% 30% 19% 18%

15

Table 3 Summary of gains and causes

Gains where there was a condition Caused No-gain Institution Research Operational

action Operational

result Total gains

Not stimulated by certification 1 6 5 2 3 16 Partially stimulated by certification 4 6 2 3 15 Mostly stimulated by certification 5 16 10 8 5 39

Total 26 21 12 11 70

Gains where there was not a condition Caused No-gain Institution Research Operational

action Operational

result Total gains

Not stimulated by certification 2 2 1 3 6 Partially stimulated by certification 1 1 1 2 5 Mostly stimulated by certification 2 3 3 8

Total 3 6 5 5 19 Sixteen of the gains were operational result gains, which in our view represent the most desirable gains and real improvements in controlling the impact of fisheries on the environment: 11 arose directly from a condition, and 5 did not appear to be directly related to a condition. Of the 11 that arose directly from a condition, 8 were judged to be most likely stimulated or partially stimulated by the certification process itself; and for three the certification process could not be identified as the primary catalyst. In these latter cases the environmental gain was usually ongoing at the time of certification, and we judged that even if it was supported by the certification process it would have happened anyway, although perhaps not quite as rapidly, in the absence of certification. We should emphasise (as we did in the methods) that it is not easy to directly attribute gains to the MSC process. Very often, those gains that we have attributed to certification were only mostly stimulated by certification, and it is difficult to convincingly argue, after the event, that they would not have happened in the absence of certification. Indeed, it is to be expected that a fishery making such gains, and generating a much more sustainable ethos within the industry and management, would naturally pre-dispose itself to certification. Thus there is a chicken and egg element to environmental gain development, in that only environmentally responsible fisheries are likely to be generating them and only these fisheries are likely to be interested in certification. A few gains were caused directly in response to certification conditions, but here again the intention to make that change may well have already been present in the fishery management system, and simply needed the catalyst of certification to stimulate it. In some cases we found that certification strengthened the hand of groups within the fishery that were pre-disposed to making environmental gains. For instance, certification of New Zealand hoki strengthened the hand of those in the industry that had been drafting voluntary codes of conduct. But there are a number of instances where it is clear that although certification has contributed to the gain, it is not the primary cause or stimulant. For instance, although the number of hooks discarded in the South Georgia toothfish fishery has declined as a direct result of measures taken in response to a condition and is counted as an operational-action gain, this is only one of three factors responsible for the decline in hooks associated with albatross nests, the others being the reduction in IUU fishing during the summer at South Georgia and the decline in longline fisheries in albatross foraging areas far away from South Georgia. Accordingly, we have scored this operational-result gain as only partially stimulated or attributable to certification. The eight result gains required by conditions that appeared to be directly or partially caused by the certification process, or where the actions of management or the industry were assisted or accelerated by the certification process were:

16

o Western Australian rock lobster (1): reduction of fishery beach litter on metropolitan beaches.

o New Zealand hoki (2): halting the decline of the eastern stock and reduction in fur seal mortalities (partial).

o South Georgia toothfish (3): closer correspondence of extractions to the Total Allowable Catches (TAC), reduction of number of discarded hooks appearing in albatross nests (partial), revision of assessment process (partial).

o Loch Torridon nephrops (2): elimination of ghost fishing and increasing stock density number of large animals.

The three result gains required by conditions that appeared not to be stimulated by certification were:

o Thames herring (1): halt in the decline of Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB), which occurred despite the failure to consider both gillnet and trawl catches against the TAC, and resulted from declining demand for herring.

o South Georgia toothfish (1): continued low levels of Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated (IUU) fishing, which although it was a condition actually happened before certification.

o South African hake (1): much improved compliance, which again was required but was ongoing prior to certification.

Interestingly, we identified five cases of operational result gain that had not apparently been the subject of conditions. In two of these cases (both Western Australian rock lobster7) the gain was partially influenced by certification and in three of them the gain seemed unrelated to certification (Thames herring and South Georgia toothfish)8. These last three are interesting, because they demonstrate that some positive and negative environmental changes should normally be expected in fisheries, especially those that are well managed enough to be considered for MSC certification. Clearly the operational result gains are not as common as other gains: they represent only 18% of the total gains that we identified. If one considers the likely influence of certification, the 10 result gains that we identified as being partially or mostly stimulated by the process of certification (irrespective of whether there was a condition) represent only 11% of the overall number of gains; whereas the 5 result gains that were primarily stimulated by certification and arose directly out of conditions (a subset that can be considered as representative of the most direct influence of certification) is 6% of the total. Another way of looking at this is the relative contribution to the change that has been stimulated by the certification process. Scoring “partial stimulation” with a weighting of 0.5, we can say that overall the certification process appears to have stimulated about 65% of the gains observed.

7 These were the apparent reduction of sea lion mortality and the removal of discarded gear from Dirk Hartog island, neither of which were direct conditions although they did arise from recommendations made in the certification process. They therefore could perhaps be classified as “arising from conditions” and “stimulated by certification” rather than “not arising from conditions”, depending upon how one interprets the conditions and recommendations in this very early certification. Note that there is some question over the level of actual reduction in sea lion mortality, so we have scored it as “partially” stimulated. 8 In the case of Thames herring the gain is that the catches are within the TAC, a coincidental result arising from the lack of demand for the fish; in toothfish there is a reduction in the number of birds being taken by IUU fishing as a result of elimination of the IUU problem prior to certification, and continuing efforts by the South Georgia Government and CCAMLR to reduce the numbers of birds taken by the licensed fleet; there is also an increase in the mean size of toothfish in the catch, which is entirely unrelated to certification.

17

Some particular examples of positive gain are given in section 4. Many of the result gains were supported by quantitative evidence, such as the halting of the decline in the New Zealand eastern hoki stock, the reduction in beach debris in the Western Australian rock lobster fishery, the reduction in longline hook discarding in the South Georgia toothfish fishery, and the increase in female size in the Loch Torridon nephrops fishery. There were eight cases of no-gain. Some of these cases involve situations where the condition was satisfied simply by the provision of additional data or information to the certification body, such as in the case of several conditions on Alaska salmon – in other words no additional work was done, except for filling an information gap. We have distinguished between this sort of information provision and issues such as the codification of a management plan on the grounds that the latter is a real advance in terms of transparency of management whereas the former is simply provision of information to a certification body. Other cases of no-gain result from an apparent failure of the certification body to be explicit about the requirement for change, which was a consequence of the early certifications specifying corrective action requests rather than conditions. An example here is the failure of the management system for Thames herring to operationally take the catches of both gillnet and trawl fisheries into account when assessing the TAC, or for progress to be made with bird mortality mitigation in the New Zealand hoki fishery. Coincidentally, of course, the herring fishery also received an unexpected operational result gain, not arising from a condition, simply because catches have fallen substantially in response to market conditions so that catches from both fleets combined are within the TAC. However, this is coincidental, and the re-certification in 2006 correctly, in our view, has raised the single condition that both catches be considered within the TAC. One other case requires special mention: south west Cornwall mackerel handline. The fishery was certified with the understanding that the certification client itself had no control over whether spawning stock biomass (SSB) remained above its precautionary biomass reference point (Bpa), but that at the time of certification the stock size appeared to be robust and above this target reference point. Subsequently, new stock assessments by fisheries scientists reporting to the European Commission, after a change to the method of calculating stock size, indicated that SSB has been below Bpa for a number of recent years. This warrants a no-gain in our view because the fishery certification client could not influence the outcome of the condition to keep stock size above the target reference point9. A similar no-gain is recorded for the New Zealand hoki western stock, which declined precipitately following certification in the absence of a condition. Even though this situation resulted from recruitment failure, we note that lack of recovery is a no-gain situation. The recent draft re-assessment report requires a formal recovery plan to be developed, with agreed rebuilding targets for the stock. Most of the positive gains were in Principle 2 (Table 4). This is out of proportion to the number of conditions raised: 26%, 37% and 37% of the conditions for these 10 fisheries were raised for P1, P2 and P3 respectively, compared to the proportion of gains attributable to P1, P2 and P3 of 17%, 46% and 37% respectively. Since most fisheries actually score lower in their full assessment for Principle 2 than the other principles (roughly 70% of fisheries score lowest on P2) this is the principle in which there is most potential for progress. It is therefore encouraging that that is indeed where most of the progress appears to be being made.

9 MSC Unit of Certification policy allows fishery certification clients to choose to pursue certification for one part of a stock. However, the main concern for a certification body under MSC’s Principle 1 will always be the health of the whole stock (the biologically distinct unit) and take account of all the extractions from the stock including those in fisheries or sectors not undergoing certification. Clients understand before embarking upon the certification process that should something outside their control effect the stock, the certification of their fishery, in this case the Cornish mackerel handline fishery, could be jeopardised. See www.msc.org for further information on unit of certification.

18

Table 4 Gains where there was a condition mostly or partially caused by certification Principle No-gain Institution Research Operational

_action Operational

_result Total gains

Total condit-

ions 1 3 2 3 2 2 9 16 2 1 3 11 7 4 25 23 3 1 15 2 1 2 20 23

To examine how different fisheries have performed, we applied an arbitrary “gain score” to the analysis, such that no-gain gains scored 0, institutional gains scored 1, research gains scored 2, operational – action gains scored 3 and operational – result gains scored 4. The results are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Average ranked scores for fisheries (ranking 0 for no-gains, 1,2,3,4 for institutional, research, action and result gains respectively). (a) gains where there was a condition, and only where the gain was stimulated by certification; (b) gains where there was a condition, irrespective of cause of gain (i.e. both mostly/ partially caused and not caused by certification); (c) gains irrespective of conditions and causes of gain.

Fishery Start certifica

tion

End certifica

tion

Number of Conditions

Average gain score where condition and

caused by certification

(a)

Average gain score where

condition irrespective of

cause (b)

Average gain score

irrespective of conditions and causes of gain

(c) Western Australian rock

lobster Jan-99 Mar-00 5 2.00 2.00 2.26

Thames herring Mar-99 Mar-00 8 1.00 1.60 1.82

Alaska salmon Mar-99 Sep-00 10 2.00 1.75 1.75

Burry Inlet cockles Mar-00 Apr-01 3 2.00 2.00 2.00

New Zealand hoki Oct-00 Mar-01 10 2.33 2.33 2.33 South West handline

mackerel Mar-01 Aug-01 2 1.00 1.00 1.00

Toothfish May-01 Mar-04 10 2.50 2.60 2.74

Loch Torridon nephrops Jan-02 Jan-03 5 2.29 2.29 2.29

South African hake Aug-02 Apr-04 7 2.14 2.09 2.09

Mexican rock lobster Nov-02 Apr-04 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 The number of gains was generally proportional to the number of conditions (Figure 1). This is only to be expected. However, it is also noteworthy that there is a general 1:1 correspondence between the number of gains and the number of conditions when the number of conditions is low, but when the number of conditions is high there are more gains than conditions. This is best seen in plot (c) of Figure 1, where there are in reality two groups of fisheries: those with fewer than 5 conditions, in which the number of gains is in 1:1 proportion to the number of conditions, and those with more than 5 conditions in which the number of gains is slightly higher than the number of conditions.

19

Figure 1 Plot of the number of gains against the number of conditions raised in a certification. Points are individual fisheries. The dotted line is a regression line with R2 shown. The single purple line is a 1:1 correspondence between the axes. (a) refers to gains where there was a condition and the gain was stimulated or partially stimulated by certification, (c) refers to gains irrespective of conditions and cause (following columns in Table 5 above).

a c

R2 = 0.4310

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20

number of conditions

num

ber o

f gai

ns

R2 = 0.3101

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20

number of conditionsnu

mbe

r of g

ains

There is a significant positive relationship between the average gain score and the number of conditions (Figure 2). This holds for all the datasets shown in Table 5 (n = 10, P <0.05). This implies that there is more likelihood of significant real (i.e. operational) gain in fisheries with greater numbers of conditions. This is not entirely unsurprising. The two fisheries with fewest conditions had less to do than those with more conditions, and have so far produced only institutional gains (score = 1). All the others have produced a mix of gains whose average is usually somewhere between a research and an action gain (i.e. between 2 and 3). The relationship is influenced by the three fisheries with low numbers of conditions; if they are removed, the strong correlation between conditions and average gain score ceases to be significant but it is still positive.

Figure 2. Relationship between average ranked score of environmental gain and the number of conditions for gains where there was a condition, irrespective of cause of gain (b in Table 5). Left full dataset, right dataset with fisheries with fewer than 5 conditions removed.

R2 = 0.40220.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0 5 10 15

number of conditions

aver

age

rank

ing

of g

ain

R2 = 0.02220.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0 5 10 15

number of conditions

aver

age

rank

ing

of g

ain

20

There is also a relationship between certification date and gain score. Figure 3 shows that for fisheries with more than an average gain score of 1 (i.e. those with more than two conditions) the relationship is positive, but the relationship is not statistically significant. The surprising thing about the relationship with certification date is that it is positive. We expected, a priori, to find that fisheries that had been certified for longer would have a higher gain score, because they had had more chance to translate their institutional and research gains into operational gains. The opposite appears to be the case. It could be that we were unable to trace such gains into the operational phase. However, the other conclusion that we come to from this analysis is that as the MSC’s Fisheries Certification Methodology has improved with time and experience, so too has the rigour of such certifications and especially the conditions set and checked during surveillance. Thus we are actually seeing more and better environmental gain from recently certified fisheries than we saw from the early certifications. This latter interpretation is more likely to be the correct one, especially as the relationship is not strongly linear: in fact, if we were to consider the three fisheries with the early certification dates (Western Australian rock lobster, Alaska Salmon and Thames herring) as being separate from the later certifications, we could interpret Figure 3 as suggesting that since that time there has been a consistent level of environmental gain for all fisheries, and it is only these three early fisheries that show lower than expected levels of gain.

Figure 3 Relationship between averaged ranked score and certification date (start date left, end date right). These plots are for the full dataset (b) in Table 5. The regression line is fitted only to those points with more than 2 conditions, and effectively ignores scores of 1.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

1998 1999 2001 2002 2004

certification start date

aver

age

gain

sco

re

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

1999 2001 2002 2004 2005

certification end date

aver

age

gain

sco

re

21

5 Conclusions

5.1 Are there environmental benefits? At the start of this section we would like to emphasise that our study has only considered the fisheries and gains that we were able to identify, or that were identified to us in the course of the research by those with detailed knowledge of the fisheries. There is therefore a limit to what we were able to uncover, and there may well be incidences of environmental gain or no-gain that we have not identified. We believe that we have identified the most important, and majority of gains but apologise if there are issues that those with more detailed knowledge than ourselves would have liked to see additionally considered. We also have not assigned any quantitative scores to the efficacy or strength of the gains, particularly when it comes to research gains. We did not set out to review the data, methods or original research conducted by those engaged directly in these activities. We looked for evidence, preferably published and verifiable, that would enable us to draw conclusions about whether change had occurred in the fishery, thus identifying in relatively simple terms whether a gain existed or not. Our analysis has identified environmental benefits from all certifications in the study group. However, we consider all improvements, institutional, research, and operational to be benefits so it might be argued that we are predisposed to find benefits. Most importantly, we found that there were 33 operational benefits, divided almost equally between action and result. The operational results are particularly important as these are areas where not only has research on a particular problem usually been undertaken, but the actions necessary to rectify the problem have also been undertaken and, crucially, these actions have been translated into real environmental improvements – reductions in the number of fur seals caught, halting a decline in stock size etc. Moreover, for the vast majority of these gains, the MSC certification programme has been at least partially, and often mostly, a stimulus for the change. Such direct causality is often difficult to prove – did the attitude change come first, leading to improvements and to the willingness to undergo certification? How can we separate certification comments from global mind-set changes concerning things such as ecosystem approaches to management? The answer is that we can not be absolutely categorical about this. The best we can do is to say, on the basis of the evidence from these fisheries, that environmental gains have flowed from conditions that have been set, and have been generated independently of conditions, at time scales that are coincident with, or appear to have been stimulated by, the certification process. But it is also true that any fishery, under normal management without certification will be expected occasionally to show both environmental gain and instances of no-gain, or indeed negative changes for a variety of legitimate reasons. Those that are certified would normally be expected to be amongst the most environmentally aware of all fisheries, and therefore we would expect there to be predominantly environmental gains outside of the certification process. The no-gains caused by declining stock size in the South West handline mackerel fishery and the western New Zealand hoki stock are somewhat coincidental to the certification process, the former because the certification client is incapable of influencing stock size and the latter because of the significant recruitment failure seen in this stock (Sullivan et al, 2005). Thus, what we should really be interested in is the question raised in our methods introduction, “does certification cause more environmental gain than would otherwise occur?”. We have been unable to answer this question within the scope of this review, but we have accumulated sufficient evidence to answer the other questions: Q1 Can instances of environmental gain be detected in fisheries that have been

certified? Clearly, the answer to this is categorically “yes”. Q2 Can instances of environmental gain be attributed directly to the certification process?

Again, the answer is clearly “yes”.

22

Q3 a) Are instances of environmental gain restricted to elements related to certification conditions? As shown above the answer to this is “we have identified gains in elements that were not certification requirements”.

b) Can instances of environmental gain in non-condition indices be attributed indirectly to the certification process? In only two cases (both Western Australian rock lobster) did we identify change that could have arisen from certification but was not linked to a condition. As noted in the footnote on page 14, these instances arose in our consideration of Western Australian rock lobster, and it is arguable whether these were part of conditions/recommendations, the difficulty arising from the rather loose categorisation of corrective actions recommended for this fishery which was the first to be certified. So, the answer to this question is probably “Not conclusively demonstrated in this study”

There is another aspect to question 3b). There is some evidence, not described in detail in the results (which are restricted to the certified fisheries themselves) of gains arising in other unrelated fisheries as a result of certification of a specific fishery. The first example of this is the fur seal catches in trawl fisheries in New Zealand. The number of fur seal deaths in the hoki fishery has declined, and because these vessels are largely the same vessels as those targeting other fisheries (notably squid, orange roughy and oreos – Nathan Walker10 pers comm.) there have been declines in fur seal deaths in other fisheries as well (Baird 2005c11). As with other gains it is difficult to say that this is wholly the result of certification, because the fishery had developed codes of conduct for the mitigation of sea lion catches in the early 1990s and codes of conduct for birds and fur seals in the late 1990s. But if we attribute the decline in fur seal catches in the hoki fishery at least partially to certification strengthening compliance with these codes of conduct (as we do in the above analysis) then it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that gains in these other fisheries have also at least partially flowed from the certification of hoki.

Figure 4 Total fur seal deaths in three New Zealand fisheries. Source, Baird 2005c. The numbers are unweighted by number of trawls.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03

n. fu

r sea

l dea

ths

Hoki (west coastSouth Island)

Southern blue whiting(Campbell andBounty)

Squid (Stewart -Snares shelf)

10 Nathan Walker, WWF New Zealand 11 Baird, S.J. 2005c. Incidental capture of seabird species in commercial fisheries in New Zealand waters 2002-3. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2005/13. 50pp.

23

It has always been assumed that the presence of a certified fishery may create a competitive advantage for that fishery which, in turn, encourages certification for other fisheries. The only possible example of this is currently the certification assessment for British Columbia salmon, which is said to have been stimulated by the successful certification of Alaska salmon. If this is the case, we might attribute some eventual environmental gains, if the fishery is certified, resulting from BC salmon certification to the original certification of Alaska salmon. Both the above examples might be considered to be beneficial effects of certification extending beyond the certified fishery but within a regional fishery grouping. The certifications of South Georgia toothfish and South African hake provide interesting examples of the effects of certification on fisheries completely outside the region. Firstly, the conditions and recommendations following the certification of toothfish provided a stimulus for the external review of assessment and management by an international organisation, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). This is quite an unprecedented effect, operating well outside the constraints of the certified fishery, and has contributed to a complete re-alignment of the assessment methods used by CCAMLR in both the Ross Sea and South Georgia toothfish fisheries, away from recruitment–based stochastically modelled projections of stock size to direct estimation of stock size using mark-recapture and integrated assessment methods. Secondly, despite massive reductions in the number of black browed albatross that are killed or harmed in the fishery, populations at South Georgia are still declining (CCAMLR, 200512). This appears paradoxical until one considers that the birds spend much of their non-breeding time around Tristan and Gough islands and the western coast of southern Africa (Birdlife International, 200413) and are presumably suffering incidental mortality in fisheries in this region. Certification of the South African hake fishery has stimulated a major observer programme which among other things is investigating the potential incidental mortality of albatross on trawl warps in the fishery. Such mortality has been recorded in the New Zealand hoki fishery and trawl fisheries around the Falkland Islands. If identified and successfully mitigated, this should have a major positive effect on populations of black browed albatross at South Georgia. Thus certification of both South Georgia toothfish and South African hake are acting to provide additional information and mitigation of a major environmental problem. Some quantitative evidence for economic gains and anecdotal evidence for social gains have been uncovered by our investigation, although this was not the primary objective of the project. In 2003 the European Union reduced the tariff quota on Western Australian rock lobster thus opening the way for increased exports to the EU. This is reported to be partially stimulated by MSC certification. During the certification period, and after the introduction of the reduced tariff, both the value and weight of western rock lobster exported to the EU rose. In the Mexican Baja California red rock lobster fishery, advantages stimulated by certification were described by Ramade and Garcia14 in November 2005 who suggest that the fishery’s enhanced image and reputation have resulted in political empowerment, greater security of resource access and access to financial resources for research. Additionally, and significantly, long standing calls from red rock lobster fishing communities to the Mexican federal government for electricity supplies, surfacing of access roads and federal support for infrastructure improvement projects have been, or are beginning to be, fulfilled (Ramade and Garcia, 2005).

12 Results of the CCAMLR ecosystem monitoring programme: reported in the Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management, CCAMLR 2005. 13 BirdLife International (2004). Tracking ocean wanderers: the global distribution of albatrosses and petrels. Results from the Global Procellariiform Tracking Workshop, 1–5 September, 2003, Gordon’s Bay, South Africa. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/seabirds/tracking_ocean_wanderers.pdf 14 Ramade, M. and R. García (2005) A report on market characteristics of the Baja California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus). Fisheries and Commercialization Departments, Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera Baja California, F.C.L. (FEDECOOP) [Regional Federation of Cooperative Societies of Baja California’s Fishing Industry]. 17pp.

24

We also identified some instances where there was a lack of evidence of gain where some might have been expected. We classified these instances as “no-gains”. Three are noteworthy:

o The lack of correction of the TAC calculation for Thames herring which has been made a condition in its re-certification report, which means that the current healthy status of the herring stock and catches is not related to certification but dependent upon other, economic factors.

o The inability of the South West mackerel handline fishery to influence mackerel stock size in the event that it would (and did) drop below Bpa.

o The failure to reduce the bird mortality in the New Zealand hoki fishery.

Lack of rapid progress is to be expected in some of the more difficult areas of ecosystem conditions, especially those relating to general ecosystem functioning and models. However, the lack of progress in some of these items has also been contributed to by lack of sufficient action from management. Interestingly, at least two of these instances could be seen as shortcomings in the certification methodology itself, notably the failure in Thames herring to initially insist on a condition addressing the TAC point (now redressed) and, some might argue in the case of mackerel, the policy of allowing certification of fisheries that target a minority part of a fish stock. One of the most striking results from our work is that there is a strong positive relationship between the number of gains we identified and the number of conditions that were set for a fishery. Moreover, there is a relationship between the gain score – the average score of the gain, ranging from 1 for institutional gains to 4 for operational result gains - and the number of conditions and date of certification. Our assumption here is that the most desirable outcome in terms of environmental gain is to have a demonstrable effect on the problem, rather than simply to put in place the mechanisms (institutional or research) that may create the operational gain. This scoring system we adopted might be criticised by those who see institutional change as the most fundamental and advantageous change of all. We would agree that, in general, if the overall attitude of a fishery system – which is usually composed of industry, scientists, managers and other stakeholders – is fundamentally altered so that all future decisions take more account of sustainability issues, including ecosystem and precautionary approaches, then indeed this is a very powerful change to have created. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to identify such changes other than anecdotally. The institutional changes that we have identified have usually been the creation of a new committee, codifying management approaches and rules etc, and it is not easy to link those to wider operational results. Hence our classification of these as the lowest type of gain. Our decision to score research higher than institutional gain arises from the general sequence of events in fisheries, that a decision to act comes first, then there is a requirement to find out how to act, and finally there is the action itself. Thus we see research gains often to be essential precursors to operational action gains. However, we accept that it need not necessarily lead to further operational action to satisfy a condition. Indeed, many of the conditions are simply about research, and this has been one the criticisms of them. We have not, here attempted to catalogue the conditions in terms of whether they require a research action, or a research action followed by an operational action dependent upon the results of the research. But it is clear that even then, very often research is simply confirmatory. A good example is the Burry Inlet cockle fishery study of the relationship between the cockle/mussel bed habitat and wading birds, which showed that there was no negative consequence of the fishery on the dependent ecosystem. Thus the condition was satisfied, and no operational action was needed. Here we have recorded a research environmental gain, but no operational gain; in fact, the work was ongoing prior to certification, and we have therefore not even scored it as stimulated or partially stimulated by certification. But this work should and does score higher than simply an institutional undertaking that there should be no ecosystem effect of the fishery, because it confirms for us that there is indeed no adverse affect, and thus confirms a positive scoring under Principle 2 used to certify the fishery.

25

Related to the characterisation of conditions we should increasingly see in fisheries, and thus the kinds of gains that might be expected, are efforts by the MSC to improve the certification methodology, with specific changes continuing to tighten the requirements relating to the articulation of conditions. During 2004 and 2005, the MSC’s Technical Advisory Board began to set out improved guidance for certification bodies when setting certification conditions. These include the need to specify conditions in terms of the outcome (environmental or management outcome) required, rather than specifying particular inputs, as well as the need to articulate where possible measurable indicators of performance against conditions and to specify timescales for full and/or partial completion. The longer term intention behind these changes is to ensure that conditions are focussing on measurable, outcome related improvements in fisheries management, research, operational activity and ultimately environmental outcomes. Another intention is to ensure that the methodology includes appropriate and consistent documentation of progress against conditions that will ultimately make impacts of certification (improvements or otherwise) easier to measure in the longer-term. Clearly, if you want to create environmental change, certifying perfect fisheries will lead to few, if any, environmental gains. Instead, you should aim to certify controversial or difficult fisheries such as South Georgia toothfish or New Zealand hoki, which were both the subject of formal objections under MSC certification procedures. Our results demonstrate this – fisheries with few conditions have, apparently, shown fewer environmental gains to date. But then, this is clearly what has been happening with the MSC programme, and most fisheries in our 10 test cases were certified with a considerable number of conditions. It should not therefore be surprising that they have demonstrated a number of environmental gains (almost 10 per fishery on average) including operational result gains (1-2 per fishery on average). An argument has often been raised that the MSC should not be certifying certain difficult fisheries. Indeed, criticism has often been levelled at the MSC that no fishery has failed to be certified after it entered the full assessment phase. As pre-assessments are confidential, we do not have the data to fully explore the merits of this argument (i.e. whether a significant number of pre-assessment fisheries eventually decided not to go for certification because of warnings of potential failure). But it does seem that it is precisely the difficult fisheries that have resulted in the greatest change. In the case of New Zealand hoki and South Georgia toothfish some of the conditions that led to environmental gains were actually imposed during the objections process. The fact that some of the scores for performance indicators in the full assessment for fisheries were lower than the unconditional pass level, and resulted in conditions, is good because one can expect some change to be effected. However, this only holds true so long as the certification body ensures that the conditions are fully satisfied. A further interesting point from our analysis is that the environmental gain score from certified fisheries has increased slightly in more recently certified fisheries, although we should note that this is not a significant source of variation in the multiple regression model. This is a somewhat counter-intuitive result. One might have expected that those fisheries that had been certified longer would have yielded the greatest number of environmental gains. This result probably points to the increasing sophistication of certification bodies, improving rigour in the certification process and the level of critical ability by scientists on the teams over time. It might point to a tendency for creeping standards – with more recent certifications requiring more in the way of operational conditions than earlier certifications. We should point out that this analysis is not currently very balanced. A more standardised approach would consider the gains only after a certain certification time – for instance the gains between first and second 5-year certification reports. Unfortunately, the current suite of fisheries has not yet been certified for long enough to undertake such an analysis. While the study resulted in important findings in individual fisheries and collectively across all ten fisheries, one thing that we did not find in our 10 fishery case studies was evidence for a “big story” environmental gain. Examples might include successfully triggering the full

26

recovery of a stock from Blim15 to Bpa16 (to use ICES17 parlance); or successfully creating recovery in ecosystem components such as moving bird or mammal populations from endangered to threatened status, or protection of critical benthic habitats. Our view is that these big story items require significant time to evolve, that they are often the result of major external pressure (e.g. the negotiation of the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP)) in addition to the sort of pressure exerted simply by a certification process, and they are comparatively rare in fisheries generally. For instance, it would be nice to be able to say that certification of South Georgia toothfish had led to recovery of black browed albatross populations, but in reality the relatively small operational-action gain of reducing the number of hooks discarded at sea is quite unlikely to deliver this on its own, particularly as albatrosses are acquiring only a small number of these hooks from the South Georgia fishery itself, and the rest from a much wider foraging range. Similarly, although the mortality of albatross in the South Georgia fishery is now negligible, they continue to be killed in other South Atlantic fisheries a long way from South Georgia and outside the control of the South Georgia management body. So although the environmental gains that we have identified may eventually be expected to contribute to these sorts of changes, we should not normally expect this of them. Rather, we would expect them to contribute to a general increase in environmental sustainability in a fishery.

We also observed that in the long run, it will be important that any future work on evaluating environmental gains from fishery certification should be informed by and linked to MSC work on the quality and consistency of fishery assessments. If standards or our understanding of sustainability change to require a different level of performance in fisheries, then tracking and measuring environmental gain or benefit arising from certification will become more challenging as it will not be possible to measure the same things.

5.2 The major lessons of this analysis are: o All certified fisheries have shown some environmental gain resulting from the certification

process.

o Some environmental gain has resulted in areas where there were no conditions, but in general the biggest gains have been in areas which carried conditions for certification.

o There is a direct relationship between both the amount of gain, and the relative direct benefit of that gain to the environment (expressed as our gain score), with the number of conditions that are set for a fishery. When the number of conditions is high, the total gains to a fishery appear to be greater than the number of conditions, whereas when they are low the gains are equal to the number of conditions.

o The instances of lack or failure of gain in areas that we would expect to see gain resulted from failures in some of the early certifications, as well as from the difficulty of finding solutions to some very difficult environmental problems. The early certified fisheries show a lower average environmental benefit than the later certified fisheries.

o If environmental gain outweighs the other strategic objectives of the MSC, certification of difficult fisheries should be encouraged because these are the fisheries in which certification is likely to create the biggest environmental gains.

o It was virtually impossible to create a set of indices that would be equally applicable across certified fisheries for comparative purposes. The only index that comes close is target stock size in relation to target/limit reference points. But not all certified fisheries set target/limit reference points, nor do they have easily interpreted assessments of stock size. This approach should not be precluded in future analyses, but we deemed it not to be practical here.

15 Blim – a limit reference point for biomass – usually a biological bottom line and the level below which biomass should not fall. 16 Bpa – a precautionary reference point for biomass – usually a precautionary biomass level above which there is greater certainty that stocks will remain sustainable 17 ICES – International Council for the Exploration of the Sea – the international organisation that co-ordinates fisheries and marine research in the North Atlantic

27

5.3 Next steps ~ further work The initial findings show promising evidence of quantitative and qualitative environmental benefits which now require critical analysis and peer scrutiny to determine whether the methods and results are robust and credible with the scientific community as well as with the range of MSC stakeholders. While tangible measures showing environmental improvements resulted from the analysis, we have expressed caution about causality (i.e., in some cases there are uncertainties about the stimuli for change) and other questions arising from the work. When we originally proposed this project, we determined that two phases of this study would be necessary: Phase 1 to establish whether environmental gains had been realised in existing certified fisheries; and, Phase 2 to expand the enquiry to build a strategic framework for the future analysis of environmental impacts of certification and to investigate evidence that the MSC programme has wider impacts on environmental sustainability. To mark the transition from the first to the second phase, the MSC is planning to host a significant workshop in 2006 (currently proposed for mid-September 2006) to discuss both the results of the first phase and how to move forward. The MSC will invite a wide range of contributors to participate, including selected experts and certifiers involved in fishery assessments and objections processes, members of the MSC’s Technical Advisory Board, environmental NGO stakeholders, client fishery stakeholders, representatives of the MSC’s major funding organisations, and MSC Board members. Reaction to, and testing of, the methods and outcomes of the first phase of the environmental benefits work will lead to scoping of the second phase of the work and development of appropriate terms of reference. The MSC has long acknowledged that it needs to develop a plan or framework for long term monitoring and evaluation of changes in fisheries management, environmental gains and other benefits resulting from certification. This idea has now come of age and we have recommended that future MSC work on each of the three major issues contributing to sustainable development (ecological, economic and social) should move ahead strategically and concurrently. Therefore the main objective of the workshop will be broader than simply looking at the environmental benefits question. The main objective is to contribute to the development of a formal Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the impacts of the MSC programme from Environmental, Economic and Social Perspectives. Conclusions that emerge from the workshop will then be used by the MSC to determine 1) the highest priority needs; 2) the most appropriate methodologies; and 3) form the basis for future research and funding proposals. As well as discussing reactions to, and thoughts about, the methods and results in this report, topics that could be covered in the workshop may include: o Establishing a framework for evaluating more generic environmental gains from fishery

certification, including exploring the possibility of developing generic environmental indices.

o Exploring whether generic 'environmental gain' indices or metrics can be incorporated into the Fisheries Certification Methodology and audited by certification bodies routinely at annual surveillance audits. Discussion will take into account the latest work on this topic by the MSC’s Technical Advisory Board.

o Developing approaches to capturing information from pre-assessed fisheries that go no further in the MSC programme (to ascertain whether any positive impacts come from engagement in the programme).

o Developing methods to analyse whether the MSC certification programme has wider impacts on overall environmental sustainability, i.e., are there environmental improvements in uncertified fisheries or bio-regions or ecosystems and can any link be made to the existence of the MSC eco-labelling programme?

o Developing an evaluation framework for testing the hypothesis that MSC certification will lead to long term sustainability from an industry perspective (i.e., the ‘securing long term supplies of fish’ side of the MSC equation).

28

o Developing a plan for evaluating the longer term environmental improvements hypothesised by this work for each certified fishery.

o Discussion of existing economic and market benefits work (to date mainly conducted by Dr Cathy Roheim of Rhode Island University).

o Discussion of existing social benefits work (e.g., with reference to the kind of work conducted by Meredith Lopuch, Director, Community Fisheries Program, WWF USA).

o Developing hypotheses, short and longer term projects, and a framework for evaluating social and economic benefits.

The conclusions and recommendations from the workshop will be reported to the MSC Board of Trustees and will form the basis for an agreed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the impacts of the MSC Programme from Environmental, Economic and Social Perspectives to be published later in 2006. 4 May 2006

29

6 Annex 1: main analysis table Notes:

1. Condition is the condition number that was set by the certification body. “0” indicates no condition was relevant 2. Stimulated by MSC process? Indicates whether the environmental gain was stimulated or caused/mostly caused by the certification and/or conditions

(1), partially attributable or contributed to by the certification and/or conditions (0.5) or not attributable or linked to certification or conditions (0).

Type of gain

Fishery Principle Index Condition?

Stimulated by MSC

process? None Institutional Research Operational - action Operational - result Western Australian Rock Lobster 1

Participation in voluntary log book scheme 0 0

No improvement in uptake

Western Australian Rock Lobster 1

Proposed introduction of VMS 0 0

Increase the area coverage for the collection of data for management purposes

Improved surveillance.

Western Australian Rock Lobster 1

Proposed management of by-catch 0 1

Possession limit for deep-sea crabs

Western Australian Rock Lobster 1

Adoption of an agreed harvest strategy 5 1

Explicit allocation of catch shares to stakeholders

Western Australian Rock Lobster 1

Robust assessment methods 0 0

Depletion model complements standard assessment methods

Western Australian Rock Lobster 2

Risk Assessment Study 1 1

Quantifies level of risk to target species, bycatch species and the environment

Western Australian Rock Lobster 2

Ecosystem effects of fishing 0 1

SRG established to advise on ecosystem effects of fishing Research projects

30

Type of gain

Fishery Principle Index Condition?

Stimulated by MSC

process? None Institutional Research Operational - action Operational - result

Western Australian Rock Lobster 2

Beach Litter Survey 4 1

Reduction in litter discarded at sea

Decrease in rock lobster industry litter on metropolitan beaches

Western Australian Rock Lobster 2

Environmental Management Strategy 2,3 1

Provides framework for minimising adverse effects of fishery on non-target species

Western Australian Rock Lobster 2

Sea Lion Interaction SRG formed 0 1

Research into development of Sea Lion Exclusion Devices (SLEDs)

Western Australian Rock Lobster 2

Sea lion mortality 0 0.5

Reduction in sea lion mortality

Western Australian Rock Lobster 2

Code of practice for reducing whale entanglements 0 1

Training programs in disentanglement procedures

Western Australian Rock Lobster 2

Abrolhos Islands 0 0.5

Introduction of leases and licensing agreements

1.Impact Assessments. 2. Waste Management Strategy

1.Installation of environmentally sensitive moorings 2.Trial domestic waste collection 3. Sponsored island clean-ups

Volunteers remove discarded fishing gear from Dirk Hartog Island

Thames herring 1 Data collection 1 0

Introduction of mandatory reporting procedures for vessels <10m.

Market and vessel surveillance conducted by KESFC & DEFRA.

Thames herring 1

Documentation of Assessment methods 2 0

Publication of a paper outlining estimation of SSB and the effect of the proposed introduction of multi-annual TACs on the

31

Type of gain

Fishery Principle Index Condition?

Stimulated by MSC

process? None Institutional Research Operational - action Operational - result future of the fishery

Thames herring 1

Reconciliation of all landings against TAC 6 0

No reconciliation has taken place - trawl data are still outside the system

Thames herring 3

Management plan 3,10 0

Introduction of multi-annual TACs

Thames herring 3

Consultative process 4,11 0.5

1.Adoption of Code of Practice by driftnet fishermen. 2.Regular annual meeting of scientists and fisherman.

Thames herring 3

Risk to sustainability 7 1

Voluntary agreement of quota limits reduce the economic incentive to overfish

Thames herring 3 Bycatch 5,12 1

Information on bycatch now collected through voluntary reporting scheme.

Thames herring 3

Control measures 8 1

KESFC by-law introduced to prevent the immediate cessation of fishing in the drift-net fishery once the TAC is exceeded

Thames herring 3

Protection of SSB 11 0

TAC intended to maintain precautionary SSB

Decline in SSB halted. Current levels of SSB are above precautionary limit

32

Type of gain

Fishery Principle Index Condition?

Stimulated by MSC

process? None Institutional Research Operational - action Operational - result

Thames herring 1

Catches within TAC 0 0

Catches (trawl + gillnet) have declined to be within the TAC

Alaska Salmon 1

Target Reference Points 1,2,3 1

Information provided and management methods better explained in terms of application of TRPs, but no major gains in understanding or process.

Alaska Salmon 1

Limit Reference Points 4 1

Progress in establishing LRPs; ADF&G manages with current escapement goals and policies about stock of concern in such a way as to ostensibly have the operational equivalents of LRPs.

Alaska Salmon 1

Limit Reference Points 5 0

Mark-recapture studies on coho salmon have improved data collection and using those studies, researchers found that the salmon population from the Chilkat river was grossly underestimated.

33

Type of gain

Fishery Principle Index Condition?

Stimulated by MSC

process? None Institutional Research Operational - action Operational - result

Alaska Salmon 1

Limit Reference Points 6 0.5

ADF&G provided the certification team with the documents and agreements produced by the PST through June 2003. There has been no negative change in stock status but also no advance/ gain on previous situation.

Alaska Salmon 2

Bycatch monitoring 7&8 1

ADF&G instituted a program in 2002 to document bycatch in the department’s salmon test fisheries; results provided in May 2005 report; level of observer coverage has increased; no marine mammal or bird mortalities recorded in the test fisheries.

Alaska Salmon 3

Permitting and subsidies 9 0

Reductions shown in the number of permitted vessels that actually fish; no significant subsidies currently

Alaska Salmon 3

Genetics of hatchery and wild salmon 10 1

ADF&G provided documents & research results produced through the certification period to SCS, but no advance or gain on previous situation

34

Type of gain

Fishery Principle Index Condition?

Stimulated by MSC

process? None Institutional Research Operational - action Operational - result

Burry inlet cockles 1

Stock assessment 3 1

Documentation of biomass assessment

Burry inlet cockles 2

Ecosystem interactions 2 0

Research on interaction between oystercatchers and mussel crumble/cockle populations confirms no adverse impacts

Burry inlet cockles 3

Fishery closure 1 1

New management system allowed and triggered a closure to protect stock in 2005

New Zealand hoki 1

spatial structure of the fishery 1 1

more complex and realistic assessment model implemented

New Zealand hoki 1

spatial structure of the fishery - juvenile hoki 2 1

reduction in catch of small hoki

diversion of effort from eastern stock

New Zealand hoki 1

management of eastern stock 3 1

declining stock trajectory of eastern stock halted

New Zealand hoki 1

habitat research 4 1

habitats and trawl grounds mapped

New Zealand hoki 2

observer coverage 5 1

limited increase/reliability in observer coverage for detection of seal mortality

New Zealand hoki 2

mitigation of seal impacts 7 0.5

Voluntary code enhanced and implemented more widely

mitigation measures tried with limited success

voluntary code to reduce mortality

reduction in fur seal mortalities

New Zealand 2

mitigation of bird impacts 7 1

Although some research has

35

Type of gain

Fishery Principle Index Condition?

Stimulated by MSC

process? None Institutional Research Operational - action Operational - result hoki taken place this

has not resulted in environmental gain

New Zealand hoki 3

management plan 8,9 1

There has been the development of a comprehensive management plan, and ecosystem effects are now considered in the assessment

New Zealand hoki 3

enforcement procedures 10 0.5

Codes of practice bind company Members

New Zealand hoki 1

status of hoki stock 0 0

Western stock has declined, and management action has not yet resulted in a recovery.

South West handline mackerel 1

Target stock size 1 0

Handline fishery not able to prevent drop of stock below Bpa.

South West handline mackerel 3

Landings records 2 1

Landings at smaller ports now documented

Toothfish 1

surveillance and assessment 1 0

Review of stock assessment. More robust and sustainable stock

Toothfish 1

stock identity genetics and tagging 2 0.5

Research confirmation of stock identity

Toothfish 3 continued surveillance 3 0

Increasing surveillance presence Continued low IUU

36

Type of gain

Fishery Principle Index Condition?

Stimulated by MSC

process? None Institutional Research Operational - action Operational - result

Toothfish 2 rajid populations 4 0.5

Research into ray distribution and discard mortality

Mitigation of discard mortality though cut-offs

Toothfish 3 management systems 5 1

Creation of management plan

Toothfish 3

external review of management 6 1

Review of stock assessment. More robust and sustainable stock

Toothfish 3

inclusion of IUU catches in TAC 7 1

GSGSSI now requires all vessels to have product weighed by GSGSSI on leaving the fishery

increasing adherence to TAC

Toothfish 2 eliminate hook discard in offal 8 0.5

Reduction in hooks discarded

Reduction in hooks in nests of albatross

Toothfish 2 ecosystem research 9 1 Research

Toothfish 2 benthic research 10 1 Research

Toothfish 1 tagging programme 0 0

Much more robust stock assessment

Toothfish 1

increase in size of fish caught 0 0

Population more stable with increasing numbers of large fish

Toothfish 1 Stock assessment

6, recommend

ations 0.5

On track as planned to be 50% of Bo (target reference point) after 35 years

Toothfish 1 Reduction in IUU 0 0

Reduction in un-observed catches and mortality of seabirds and other bycatch

Toothfish 2 reduction in 0 0 Reduction in number

37

Type of gain

Fishery Principle Index Condition?

Stimulated by MSC

process? None Institutional Research Operational - action Operational - result bird catches of birds killed

Loch Torridon Nephrops 3

Management planning 1 0.5

Torridon Management plan implemented

Loch Torridon Nephrops 3

Management systems 1 1

Torridon Nephrops Management Group formed

Loch Torridon Nephrops 2 Escape panels 2 1

Escape panels tested and fitted to all pots

Underwater monitoring demonstrates that ghost fishing has been eliminated.

Loch Torridon Nephrops 3

Data collection (Voluntary Code) 3 1

Logsheets designed and used

Loch Torridon Nephrops 3

Stock status & local stock assessment

4, plus non-binding

recommend-ation 1

ROV survey of inner sound

Increase in stock density recorded in 2005 and CPUE increase from 2003 on. CPUE increases and catches of larger animals imply positive effect of escape panels.

South African Hake 1 Age structure 2 0

New scientific posts established and otolith workshops organised

South African Hake 1

size/age/sex and fecundity relationship 2 0

Two year hake fecundity sampling program

South African Hake 2

Bycatch monitoring 1 0.5

Observer programme established following pre-assessment and coverage increased over the course of the assessment

38

Type of gain

Fishery Principle Index Condition?

Stimulated by MSC

process? None Institutional Research Operational - action Operational - result South African Hake 2

Bycatch mitigation 1 1

Bycatch limits introduced

South African Hake 2

Bycatch mitigation 1 1

Kingklip spawning area closed for three months in 2005

South African Hake 2

Ecological relations 3 0.5

Generally improved understanding and mitigation of potential environmental losses due to fishing

South African Hake 2

Benthic impacts 4 1

Increase in the area of benthic habitat mapped and GIS overlay of fishing effort

South African Hake 2

Benthic impacts 4 0

Targets for designation of MPAs, including offshore environment

South African Hake 2

Impacts on seabirds 7 1

Increased observer coverage specifically targeted at monitoring seabird interactions with fishing gear

South African Hake 3

External Review 5 1

Management system subject to external review for the first time in January 2006.

South African Hake 3

Compliance monitoring 6 0

Compliance now appears to be good

Mexican Baja California rock lobster 3

Understanding ecological impacts 1 1

Grant issued to multi-national (US-Mexico), multi-disciplinary project team to study

39

Type of gain

Fishery Principle Index Condition?

Stimulated by MSC

process? None Institutional Research Operational - action Operational - result fishery’s ecosystem & impacts

Mexican Baja California rock lobster 3

Research to develop appropriate harvest strategies 2 1

Alternative approach approved by certifier: newly formed committee involving broad range of stakeholders, scientists & managers

40

7 Annex 2: Fishery case studies

Number Fishery (in order of certification date)

Quantitative and/or Qualitative Analysis?

1. Western rock lobster Both

2. Thames herring Both

3. Alaska salmon Both

4. Burry Inlet cockles Qualitative only

5. New Zealand hoki Both

6. South West handline mackerel Qualitative only

7. South Georgia toothfish Both

8. Loch Torridon nephrops Qualitative only

9. South African hake Both

10. Mexican Baja California lobster Qualitative only

41

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ROCK LOBSTER FISHERY The species and the fishery Western rock lobster (Panulirus cygnus) is a species of spiny lobster, which means it is without claws. The species lives mainly in the shallow waters off Western Australia in depths of less than 60 metres, although it does make an annual migration to deeper habitats. Western rock lobsters mature at about 5–6 years of age and the maximum estimated age is in excess of 20 years. Western rock lobsters are omnivorous, eating coralline algae, molluscs, small crustaceans, polychaete and peanut worms. Lobsters are preyed upon by octopus, sharks and finfish. The fishery operates off the western coast of Australia between Cape Leeuwin and Shark Bay. It is managed by the Western Australian government using limits on the number of pots and other “input” controls such as restricted fishing zones, days fished, pot specifications, lobster size and breeding condition. The Western Australian rock lobster fishery is Australia’s most valuable single species fishery and is worth between $200 and 600 million dollars (AUD) per year. There are about 590 fishing boats working the fishery using baited pots. Each year the fishery catches on average about 11,000 tonnes of lobster. Lobsters are caught and transported live to onshore processing facilities along the Western Australian coast. Most product is exported live to south east Asia, particularly Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong. A significant proportion is also exported as frozen lobster tails to Europe and the USA.

Fishery assessment and certification In 1997 the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (Inc) (WAFIC) applied for a pre-assessment of the rock lobster fishery, this was followed in 1999 by the commissioning of a full assessment of the fishery against the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing from US-based Scientific Certification Systems (SCS). In March 2000, the Western Australian rock lobster fishery became the first fishery in the world to meet the MSC standard. The lead auditor was Dr. Chet Chaffee, assisted by an expert

42

team consisting of: Dr Bruce Phillips, Curtin University, Western Australia; Dr Tony Smith, CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Tasmania and Dr Trevor Ward, then based at the University of Western Australia. The fishery for Western Australian Rock Lobster was an early test case to assist the MSC to explore the practical application of the MSC standard and the certification methodology due to its abundance of data. The MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing were translated into a set of 18 measurable indicators to enable the team to objectively determine the performance of the fishery against the MSC standard. At the end of the assessment process, the fishery met the overall requirements for a conditional pass. The assessment revealed a number of strengths in the fishery and some weaknesses. Five conditions for continued certification were raised:

1. Complete an ecological risk assessment.

2. Prepare and distribute for public comment an environmental management strategy.

3. Effectively incorporate an environmental management strategy into operational

arrangements for the fishery.

4. Increase participation of environmental community in the decision-making process in

the fishery.

5. Improve arrangements for recording data on bycatch and interactions of the fishery

with mammals, seabirds, manta rays, dolphins or whales.

The certification body also made a further 15 non-binding recommendations to the fishery client, WAFIC, for additional improvements in the fishery (see Box 1). Recommendations, unlike conditions, are not requirements for continued certification. Box 1: Non-binding recommendations made by certification body to client organisation, WAFIC. 1. Put measures in place to ensure that full cost recovery does not result in downgrading monitoring of

larval settlement and fishery independent spawning stock surveys. 2. The current harvest strategy could be formalized and made more explicit, and alternatives explored

and evaluated. 3. Monitor longer-term development of recreational fishing effort. 4. Make publicly available comprehensive documentation on current assessments and seek review. 5. Undertake a more comprehensive risk assessment of current strategies. 6. Continue to develop models to evaluate future management options. 7. Consider developing a more quantitative assessment of the risks of over-fishing. 8. Consider initiating a research programme of habitat mapping across the whole fishery. 9. Consider developing research strategies that better address the natural trophic interactions

between lobsters and their food in fished and unfished areas. 10. Consider developing research strategies that evaluate interactions of coastal development with

lobster and dependent and associated species and habitats. 11. Consider implementing unique labelling and identifying bait bands for WRL, subsequent monitoring

and evaluation of their contribution to coastal litter. 12. Consider developing a research strategy to identify and assess historic changes to coral reef

habitats of the Abrolhos Islands from fishing operations. 13. Consider developing a research programme on the ecological effects of the use of bait in a variety

of habitats used by the fishery. 14. Consider developing research strategies that involve CALM to assess importance of the removal of

lobster biomass for the population success of Australian Sea Lions. 15. The fishery should work more actively with AIMAC, FWA, CALM and the environmental NGOs to

develop and implement an effective Plan of Management for the Abrolhos Islands.

43

Post certification audits and outcomes Since the fishery was certified the certification body has conducted seven surveillance audits and a number of follow-up checks to review progress of the client organisation with meeting certification conditions and to ensure the fishery continues to meet the standard set by the Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The fishery, in early 2006, is undergoing a full assessment for re-certification and WAFIC’s fishery certificate has been extended to enable completion of the re-assessment process. Audits of progress in the fishery over the five years of the first certificate have been mixed. As the fishery undergoes re-assessment, concerns have been expressed by environmental stakeholders about the adequacy of environmental performance in the fishery. These concerns echoed those raised by some stakeholders during the five year certification period. One observer reported that one of the main challenges was related to the fact that the industry organisation, WAFIC, is the certification client (who must meet conditions), but in order to meet some of the conditions direct or indirect input from government management and research agencies, who were not bound by certification conditions, was needed (L. Hitch18, pers comm.). This created tensions related to priorities and resources. On a number of occasions, extensions of time were either granted to the client or needed by the certification body in order to complete and agree aspects of the ecological risk assessment and/or develop and implement the subsequent environmental management strategy. On other occasions ‘non-conformances’ with conditions were recorded and corrective action requests made by SCS of the client, effectively setting deadlines by which time certain actions would be taken or the continued certification of the fishery might have been at risk. In summary, however, the fishery continued to meet the specified requirements throughout the original certification period and continued to be certified during the re-assessment process.

18 Lorraine Hitch, WWF Australia

44

Analysis of environmental gains There were no conditions for continued certification raised against MSC’s Principle 1 (relating to the health and productivity of the target stock). However, a number of potential weaknesses were identified by the certification body in its initial certification report against which the certification body made non-binding recommendations (Box 1). The issues identified, in turn, suggested to us topics to explore to determine whether action had been taken by the client, fisheries management agency or researchers, and if so, whether any environmental gain been realised. Similar to our examination of actions taken in relation to certification conditions, we also attempted to determine whether activities might be have been directly stimulated by the certification. Voluntary logbook scheme Principle 1, Criterion 1.1 ~ weakness identified in relation to performance against SCS Indicator 1B: o Data from the voluntary log-book programme may not be representative of the fleet as a

whole (roughly 30% of the fleet were involved when fishery first certified). Source: SCS, 1999

Type of gain : none The average annual participation rate in the voluntary logbook scheme between 1993/1994 and 2004/2005 was 35%. Following certification in 2000, the participation rate increased briefly in 2001 and 2002, but then decreased during 2003 and 2004 (Figure 1). Participation rates are directly linked to the attitude of fishermen to the most recent round of management measures rather than to any growing sense of environmental responsibility amongst fishermen (M. Rossbach19, pers. comm.). The participation rate increases in years when management control measures are acceptable to the industry (i.e. 2001 and 2002) and decreases in years when less popular management measures are introduced (i.e. 2003 and 2004). It seems unlikely that participation rates will increase significantly in the foreseeable future. We concluded that participation is not stimulated by certification or engagement in the MSC programme.

01020304050

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Year

Part

icip

atio

n ra

te in

lo

gboo

k sc

hem

e (%

)

Figure 1: Participation rates in th1993/1994 and 2004/2005. Dashedline shows award of certification. M. Rossbach (WAMRL).

Season start

19 Western Australian Marine Researc

e voluntary logbook scheme for fishing seasons between vertical line shows start of pre-assessment, solid vertical Data source: Chubb & Barker (2000,2002,2003,2004,2005) and

h Laboratories

45

Introduction of Vessel Monitoring System Type of gain: Operational – action The WA Fisheries Department has requested that the Rock Lobster Industry Advisory Council (RLIAC) to formally support the introduction of a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) for the 2006/2007 season. The implementation of VMS would directly benefit the management of the fishery by efficiently monitoring closed areas and fishing boundaries as well as providing an accurate means of checking pot counts and gear compliance of commercial vessels (RLIAC 2005). Implementation of VMS will also result in significant improvements in at-sea safety, improved communication systems for vessels at sea and there is scope for the system to provide greatly improved research information on the fishery (RLIAC 2005). As VMS systems will be implemented across 16 managed Western Australian fisheries, we concluded that the operational action gain was not stimulated by MSC certification. Proposal to manage the take of by-product species Type of gain: Operational – action As part of the necessary response to assessments under environmental regulations of ecological sustainable development (known as ESD in Australia), the Western Australian Fisheries Department is aiming to implement management measures to ensure the sustainable take of by-product species such as scalefish, sharks, octopus, cuttlefish, bugs and crabs. The Minister for Fisheries has already approved that regulations be amended to limit the possession of deep-sea crabs by west coast lobster fishers (RLIAC 2005). The recommendation to impose a catch limit on deep-sea crabs was initially proposed by Australia’s Federal Department of Environment and Heritage when reviewing an application by the fishery for acceptance as an ‘EMS’ fishery. However, we concluded that there is a link to MSC certification because the Western Australian Fisheries Department has publicly stated that the MSC certification process paved the way for the fishery to meet its requirements in demonstrating ecological sustainability to Environment Australia, with the preparation of the Ecological Risk Assessment and Environment Management Strategy being conducted to address ongoing certification requirements http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/ar/2002/ar2002ordo.pdf. Adoption of an agreed harvest strategy Principle 1, Criterion 1.1, weakness identified relating to performance against SCS Indicator 1C: o The biological reference points could be misrepresented as ambiguous as a range of 20-

25% is commonly stated, even though 25% is considered a limit reference point.

Source: SCS, 1999 Type of gain: Institutional The Western Rock Lobster fishery was amongst the first to be reviewed under the Government’s new Integrated Fisheries Management (IFM) process (Department of Fisheries 2005d). The IFM concept is intended to promote the long-term sustainability of the fishery and involves the setting of a sustainable harvest level and the allocation of explicit catch shares to each user group. Research results now compare current stock levels to a reference level (i.e. stock levels in 1980). The stock currently remains fully exploited with significant regional variation in population levels and exploitation rates. We concluded that MSC certification was a stimulus for change because although the adoption of a harvest strategy was an ESD reporting requirement in 2005, the certification body first recommended this change to management in 2003 (Department of Fisheries 2005d).

46

New assessment approach Principle 1, Criterion 1.1, weakness identified in relation to performance against SCS Indicator 1D: o There is a lack of adequate documentation for recent quantitative assessments, which

have yet to be formally presented or reviewed. o Current quantitative assessment lacks a thorough analysis of sensitivities to uncertainties

in the data and model assumptions. o Current quantitative assessments focus on effects of current management measures, but

should be expanded to include an evaluation of the consequences of future measures, considering a wider range of management options.

Source: SCS, 1999 Type of gain: Research A new stock assessment approach using depletion estimates was completed during 2003/2004 providing robust estimates of exploitation rates and residual biomass in the three zones of the fishery. The assessment highlighted an increase in exploitation in B zone attributable to increased efficiency of the fleet. Further investigation of the exploitation rates in B zone is currently being conducted by the Fisheries Department of W.A. (Department of Fisheries 2005d) Ecological Risk Assessment Condition 1, relating to performance against Criterion 1.1, 2.1 and 2.2 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SCS Indicators 1E, 2A, 2B, 2C.1, 2C.2, 2C.3 and 2C.5): o Complete an ecological risk assessment to include all aspects of fishing on species

(including protected and ecologically related species), habitats, and biotic communities. ERA to produce:

- Prioritised risks. - Strategies to address those risks. - A review by independent and external expert reviewers available for public

comment. Source: SCS, 1999

Type of gain: Institutional Stakeholder and expert-based workshops in 2002 and 2005 resulted in the production of an ecological risk assessment (ERA) that considered rock lobster sustainability issues and the impact of the fishery on non-target species and the environment. An updated ERA document was published in July 2005 which examined risks of fishing at the species, habitat and ecosystem levels (Dept. of Fisheries 2005a). While the certification body, as late as December 2005, continued to have issues with the specific outcomes and the process by which the ERA was completed (SCS 2005a & 2005b), we concluded that the fact that two ERAs had been conducted justified assigning an institutional gain that was clearly stimulated by MSC certification.

47

Research projects on the ecosystem effects of fishing Principle 2, Criterion 2.1, weaknesses identified relating to performance against SCS Indicator 2A: o Knowledge of the distribution of some habitats in shallow coastal waters, such as algal

beds, seagrass assemblages, and soft sediment faunal assemblages is weak. o Knowledge of the habitats in deeper waters (>20m) is limited to only very basic

information about the substrate. o The dominant predators and prey of the lobster are known only for inshore waters, and

this only from fished areas. o The natural trophic and functional interactions between lobster and their predators and

prey are poorly known. o The interactions between coastal development, the lobster and the ecosystem are largely

unknown. Source: SCS, 1999

Type of gain: Research Separate research projects are currently examining the impact of rock lobster fishing in deep water ecosystems, trophodynamics and rock lobster interactions in coastal water ecosystems. Preliminary results are reported in Dept. of Fisheries 2005c, which reports on the meetings of the Ecosystem Scientific Reference Group (SRG). While the role of the SRG is to provide independent advice to the Western Australian agencies and groups concerned with rock lobster research and management, one of the principal drivers, according to the Department of Fisheries, of much of the research underway or planned is the MSC certification (Dept. of Fisheries 2005c), along with the needs of the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). Reduction in litter from rock lobster industry sources Recommendations and later Condition relating to performance against MSC’s Principle 2, Criterion 2.1, (SCS Indicator 2B.4). Recommendations o The fishery should consider implementing a procedure for uniquely labelling and

identifying bait bands used in the WRL, and a subsequent monitoring to identify their proportional contribution to coastal litter, with reference to other sources of similar plastic straps.

Condition for continued certification (minor issue noted during Audit #5, 2003) o The client must provide a written plan for a specific and targeted evaluation of the

awareness and operational effectiveness of the Bait Handling Code of Practice throughout the fishery, including a timetable for implementation.

Sources: SCS 1999 and 2003

Type of gain: Operational – action and Operational – result Results from the most recent beach litter survey indicate that the proportion of beach litter from the rock lobster fishery on Perth metropolitan beaches has decreased significantly since MSC certification (Figure 2). Through the adoption of a Bait Handling Code of Practice, fishermen are encouraged to dispose of bait bands and bait packaging responsibly. This policy has been particularly effective in reducing the number of bait bands discarded at sea, for example, 506 bait bands were collected from eight sites in the beach litter survey of 1992, while in 2002 the total number of bait bands collected was only two (Cary et al, 1987, Edwards et al, 1992, Poynton et al, 2002).

48

We concluded that these results were stimulated by the certification because it was only after the MSC first highlighted the problem of disposal of industry litter that RLIAC and SeaNet began to promote a voluntary bait handling code of practice (see http://www.wafic.com.au/pdf/prowestjanfeb01.pdf)

Figure 2: The proportion of the total weight of beach litter attributable to the rock lobster fishery as determined from 3 surveys in the Marmion Marine Park conducted in 1985, 1992 and 2002. The bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Dashed vertical line shows start of pre-assessment, solid vertical line shows award of certification. Source : Cary et al (1987), Edwards et al (1992), Poynton et al (2002)

01020

304050

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Year

Con

trib

utio

n fr

om ro

ck

lobs

ter f

ishe

ry to

tota

l w

eigh

t of b

each

litte

r (%

)

Development of an Environmental Management Strategy Conditions 2 and 3, relating to performance against Principle 2 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SCS Indicator 2C): o Prepare an Environmental Management Strategy (EMS) and distribute for public

comment and input, to address: – Impacts of fishery on environment – Proposed objectives, strategies, indicators and performance measures – Specify an operational plan including implementation actions and supporting

programme of research. o Incorporate the EMS within the operational arrangements for the fishery.

Source: SCS 1999 Type of gain : Institutional An Environmental Management Strategy (EMS) to examine the ecosystem impacts of rock lobster fishing was developed following on from the Ecological Risk Assessment Workshop conducted in February 2001. A draft EMS was prepared in October 2002 but did not have detail on specific tasks or address risks, including research strategies, that would result in data of comparable value to data obtained from comparative studies between fished and unfished areas. The draft EMS failed to meet the specific ecosystem impacts including monitoring and assessment of impacts on icon species. An updated EMS document was published in March 2005 and it describes the objectives and actions (both taken and planned) to minimise adverse effects of the fishery on non-target species (Dept. of Fisheries 2005b). A major review of the EMS is intended every 5 years. The development of the EMS, and thus the institutional gain, was a direct result of the certification condition. By the seventh surveillance audit, the certification body concluded that an appropriate framework and context for managing the environmental issues in the fishery was reported in the form of two documents:

o (1) Fishery Management System (the WRLMS)

49

o (2) EMS – to respond to the findings of the ERA.

oweve here the certification body also concluded that there were still issues that needed

erly functioning advisory systems for providing advice about the ecological

o keholders; and cosystem impacts of the fishery (SCS,

he ERA/EMS processes and application of results were highly problematic for some

stablishment of the Western Rock Lobster Effects of Fishing on the

H r, taddressing:

o propimpacts of the fishery; effectively engaging sta

o identifying and implementing research on e2005a).

Tstakeholders and remain areas of key concern as the fishery undergoes re-assessment (L. Hitch pers comm.). EEcosystem Scientific Reference Group (SRG) Type of gain: Institutional

he SRG was set up to provide independent expert advice and report directly to the RLIAC20

stablishment of a Sea Lion Interaction Scientific Reference Group

Tin relation to the effects of rock lobster fishing on the surrounding ecosystem. A key function of the SRG is to advise on the development of a strategy to provide quantitative information on risk assessment concerning the ecosystem effects of the west coast rock lobster fishery. While there have been concerns raised by some stakeholders about the composition of membership, we were able to link the establishment of the ecosystem SRG with the certification because ongoing risk assessment is a condition of certification (Penn et al, 2005). E(SRG) Condition 5 and Recommendation 14, relating to performance against Criterion 2.2 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: Condition (SCS Indicator 2G): o Data on bycatch of icon species: formal monitoring systems in the fishery will have

improved arrangements for recording data on the bycatch of, or any other interactions of the fishery with, mammals, seabirds, manta rays, dolphins, or whales.

Recommendation (SCS Indicator 2E): o The fishery should consider developing research strategies that involve CALM to assess

importance of the removal of lobster biomass for the population success of Australian Sea Lions.

Source: SCS, 1999

ype of gain: Institutional

he Western Rock Lobster Fishery/Sea Lion Interaction Group was formed to provide the

commencement of the 2004/2005 season.

T Tknowledge and research planning required to address the issue of incidental sea lion mortality. Australian sea lions on the west coast are represented by small populations with low genetic variability and limited scope for migration between populations (Campbell 2005a). The SRG considered that the low levels of mortality caused by interaction with the rock lobster fishery could have a critical effect on the abundance of west coast sea lion populations and recommended the development of sea lion exclusion devices for introduction at the

20 Rock Lobster Industry Advisory Committee

50

The SRG also recommended:

- the continuation of the Fisheries Department education program to improve the between sea lions and the industry;

- the time when they are

limiting factor in the recovery of sea lion

- - ion of the potential of hides to reduce pup mortality in colonies.

We n tification

ased on a report by the Western Australian Fisheries Department which stated that: “An

ea lion exclusion devices (SLEDs)

reporting of interactions- the regular collection of pup count data for abundance estimates;

a satellite telemetry tagging study of juvenile sea lions duringmost vulnerable to fishery interactions;

- a diet study to improve knowledge of why sea lions are attracted to pots and to determine whether food supply is a populations; further genetic studies using existing tissue samples; and the investigat

co cluded that the establishment of this group was stimulated by the MSC cerbenvironmental management strategy was developed for use in the assessment of the broader ecosystem impacts of rock lobster fishing in the context of ESD and MSC certification. This strategy includes research to reduce the interaction of sea lion pups with pots”. (Penn et al, 2005). S

lt

ccurs in shallow waters (<10 fathoms) and w levels of bycatch of the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) have been reported for the

Type of gain: Research and Operational – resu Interaction with commercial fishing pots usually olorock lobster fishery on the south-west coast (Campbell 2005b). A small number of sea lion pups are drowned each year as they become trapped in their attempt to rob pots of bait or lobsters (Figure 3). Even though the numbers are small, the impact on sea lion populations is of significant concern.

Figure 3 try between the easons 1980/1981 and 2003/2004. Unfilled circles represent records collated by CALM between

02468

101214

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Season start

Num

ber o

f sea

lion

dea

tca

used

by

rock

lobs

tein

dust

ry

hs

r

: The number of sea lion deaths caused by the rock lobster induss1980 and 1996 (reported in Mawson & Coughran 1999). Filled circles represent results of an annual survey between the seasons 1999/2000 and 2003/2004 (Campbell 2005b). Dashed vertical line shows start of pre-assessment, solid vertical line shows award of certification. Recorded levels of rock lobster fishery induced mortality of sea-lions between 1980 and 1996 were negligible (Figure 3), but the collection of sea-lion mortality data between 1980 and 1996 was irregular (Mawson & Coughran 1999) and it is likely that these results under-estimate the actual mortality of sea-lions in rock lobster pots (Campbell 2005a). Regular surveys conducted between 1999/2000 and 2003/2004 showed that there was a general decline in rock lobster fishing induced mortality of sea lions during the years following MSC certification until 2003/2004 when numbers increased slightly. Stakeholders suggest the data may have come mainly from fishery dependent telephone surveys, rather than from independent means

51

such as observers and therefore question the data’s validity. Future monitoring is necessary to verify the decline and if so, determine whether low levels of sea lion mortality persist in the long term. The proposed introduction of compulsory sea lion exclusion devices (SLEDs) in pots in areas f potential sea lion interaction is intended to minimise or eliminate the incidental mortality of o

sea lions. SLEDs, however, have not yet been fully implemented in the fishery. The Western Australian Minister for Fisheries’ decision to delay the implementation of SLEDs until the 2006/07 season reportedly relates to uncertainties concerning the effect of SLEDs on catch rates of legal-sized lobsters. The sea lion SRG has recommended that research focuses on the objective of requiring that the use of SLEDs be made mandatory for the start of the 2006/07 season (http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/op/op028/fop028.pdf). While some stakeholders are questioning the efficacy of the survey methods, the published

ata do suggest an overall decline. This project did not set out to quantify or score how “good”

as partially stimulated by the MSC ertification because of the link between the development of the Environmental Management

doption of a Code of Practice for reducing whale entanglements

dgains may or may not be or to review original survey or statistical methods, rather to determine whether there was any evidence of gain. We did not conclude that an operational action gain had been made, as the SLEDs have not been introduced to the fishery, which remains a controversial issue for stakeholders. However, given the reported decline in sea lion mortality, we did assign an operational result gain. We concluded that the reduction in sea lion mortality wcStrategy required by the MSC certification conditions and the link made by the WA government between that and research into the reduction of sea lion interactions in the fishery (see report quoted above by Penn et al, 2005). A

iteria for Condition 5, relating to performance against Criterion 2.2 of MSC’s Principles and CrSustainable Fishing (SCS Indicator 2G): o Data on bycatch of icon species: formal monitoring systems in the fishery will have

improved arrangements for recording data on the bycatch of, or any other interactions of the fishery with, mammals, seabirds, manta rays, dolphins, or whales.

Source: SCS, 1999

ype of gain: Institutional

uncil in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and and Management (CALM) and SeaNet Environmental Extension Service has developed a

T The Western Rock Lobster CoLCode of Practice for reducing whale entanglements. Commercial operators are advised to shorten tethered ropes or lines of trailing buoys when moving gear to shallow water and to remain vigilant during periods when the fishing season overlaps with the whale migration season. Fishers can voluntarily participate in training programs for instruction in disentanglement procedures. Apart from reducing the frequency of whale entanglements, the expected benefits of the adoption of the code of practice include the improvement of the profile of the industry, reduction in gear and catch losses and the establishment of a network of fishers trained in disentanglement techniques. See: (http://www.rocklobsterwa.com/documents/WhaleCofP.pdf) We concluded that that the development of the code of practice was stimulated by ertification because the high risk of social and political problems caused by whale c

entanglements were initially reported in the MSC initiated Ecological Risk Assessment report (Department of Fisheries 2005a), which in turn stimulated the development of the Environmental Management Strategy, both certification conditions.

52

Abrolhos Islands

endations 12 and 15, relating to performance against Criteria 2.1 and Condition 4, Recomm2.2 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SCS Indicators 2D and 2G). Condition: o Within 24 months of certification, there will be increased participation of the environmental

community or their representatives in the decision-making processes in the fishery. This will include consultation on impending decisions, and involvement (full participation) in decision-making committees at a range of levels in the fishery.

Recommendations: o The fishery should consider the development of a research strategy to identify and assess

any historic changes to coral reef habitats of the Abrolhos Islands that may be related to fishing operations.

o The fishery should work more actively with AIMAC21, FWA, CALM and the environmental NGOs to develop and implement an effective Plan of Management for the Abrolhos Islands (and see Condition 4).

Source: SCS, 1999 In its first report on annual auditing of the fishery, SCS reported that

isheries and the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) had signed a

here about environmental gains in relation to the Abrolhos Islands nd the western rock lobster fishery, we link back to certification conditions that stimulated the

ype of gain: Research ral and human impacts on the marine environment of the Abrolhos

the Department of FMemorandum of Understanding regarding the management of the Abrolhos Islands (SCS, 2002). The Abrolhos Islands are an area of significance for the rock lobster fishery, providing important fishing grounds and land-based support and living accommodations seasonally for rock lobster fishermen. Much of what we concludeadevelopment of both the Ecological Risk Assessment and the Environmental Management Strategy. While some of the issues here may have been in stakeholders’, government and industry minds prior to the fishery’s certification, we concluded there is a clear argument to say that the MSC certification conditions that initiated the ERA and EMS processes enabled many of these issues/risks to be brought forward, prioritised and for action to begin. In this sense, we partially attribute some of the gains here to MSC certification. TProject to assess the natuIslands This study examined the physical impacts of current human activity on Abrolhos marine habitats with a view to establishing future research requirements and monitoring programmes

ype of gain: Institutional e and licensing agreements

for the future sustainable use of Abrolhos marine resources. While this project was stimulated by multiple State, national and international legislative imperatives, the certification of the western rock lobster fishery under the MSC programme was mentioned as a significant driver (Chubb & Nardi 2003). TMinisterial approval for leas

elopments on the Abrolhos rking with the Abrolhos Islands Land

Lease and licensing arrangements for all present and future devIslands are currently in development. The WRLC is woManagement Sub-Committee to develop a Lease Agreement for fishermen based on the islands.

21 Abrolhos Islands Management Advisory Committee.

53

Type of gain: Operational – action mooringsInstallation of environmentally sensitive

funds had been obtained to install signage on sensitive vironmentally friendly public moorings

ype of gain: Research e Abrolhos

By early 2002 it was reported that areas and environment-sensitive moorings. Enconsisting of 19 moorings and 5 spar buoys were installed between 2001 and 2002 in the Wallabi and Easter groups of the Abrolhos Islands through the Natural Moorings Programme under the auspices of the Natural Heritage Trust. Stakeholders were consulted in the placement of the moorings. TWaste Management Strategy for th

grant of AUS$237,500 through the Natural ree year project assessing waste management

ype of gain: Operational – action ma Island

The Western Rock Lobster Council received a Heritage Trust Salinity Action Plan to fund a thissues in the Abrolhos Islands. The project will address the priorities identified in the Abrolhos Islands Waste Management Strategy and includes provision for future monitoring and assessment of impacts on the islands TDomestic rubbish collection trial on Ro

rubbish collection for the disposal of ring the four-month rock lobster season.

ype of gain: Operational – result ean-ups

The Department of Fisheries is conducting a trialdomestic waste that is generated on the islands du TWRLC and WAFIC sponsored island cl

e WA Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC) bbish (floats, rope, bait baskets and plastic)

conomic benefits

The Western Rock Lobster Council (WRLC) and thprovided funding for the collection of 1372kg of ruon uninhabited Dirk Hartog Island in the Shark Bay World Heritage Area and encourage their members to undertake similar exercises in the future. E

at certification under the MSC programme has resulted in economic enefit to the fishery. In October 2003, the EU granted an autonomous tariff quota (ATQ) to

AUS 12.1 million in 2004 (Figure 4a). In 2004, exports of western rock lobster accounted for

It is interesting to note thbthe importation of 1,500 tonnes of frozen Australian rock lobster (including the western rock lobster) opening the way for increased exports. The ATQ reduced the usual 12.5% tariff to 6% for a three year period until December 2006. This reduction in tariff allows access to the European market on a competitive basis and consideration of the MSC certification of the fishery was considered to have played a large part in the granting of the ATQ by the EU. The value of exports of WA rock lobsters to the EU increased from AUS $4.9 million to $nearly 95% of all Australian lobster exports compared to 77% in 2002 before the introduction of the ATQ and 54% in 1999, the year immediately prior to MSC certification (Figure 4b).

54

WA rock lobster exports to EU

0

100

200

300

400

500

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Expo

rt w

eigh

t (to

nnes

)

02468101214

Valu

e (m

illio

ns

$AU

S)

WeightValue

Figure 4(a) : Export value and weight of western rock lobster to the EU between 1995 and 2004. Solid vertical line shows MSC certification of fishery and start of intensive lobbying campaign to reduce tariff. Dashed line shows introduction of ATQ. Data source : Government of Western Australia – European office

WA rock lobster EU market share

0

20

40

60

80

100

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Year

Mar

ket s

hare

of

tota

l Aus

tral

ian

RL

expo

rts

(by

wei

ght)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Mar

ket s

hare

of

tota

l Aus

tral

ian

RL

expo

rts

(by

valu

e)WeightValue

Figure 4(b) Market share of western rock lobster exports by value and weight 1995 to 2004. Solid vertical line shows MSC certification of fishery and start of intensive lobbying campaign to reduce tariff. Dashed line shows introduction of ATQ. Data source : Government of Western Australia – European office Conclusions The measures and controls that have resulted from the need to address the requirements of ongoing certification under the MSC programme have contributed to the continued maintenance of a healthy stock, the economic viability of the fishery and an increasingly broader ecosystem-based approach to the management of the fishery. The following tables summarise the environmental gains (or otherwise) that were partially, or mostly stimulated by MSC certification of the western rock lobster fishery, or where certification was not the primary catalyst for change.

Issues required or stimulated by

certification process Potential environmental

benefit Type of gain Stimulated by certification to MSC standard?

Introduction of measures to limit of bycatch

Ensure sustainability of by-product species Operational – action Yes

Introduction of Integrated Fisheries Management scheme

Promote the long-term sustainability of the fishery Institutional Yes

55

Issues required or stimulated by

certification process Potential environmental

benefit Type of gain Stimulated by certification to MSC standard?

Introduction of new methods of assessment

Depletion estimates provide an additional estimate of stock

status for comparison with the standard methods of

assessment

Research No – may have

happened in any case

Introduction of a Risk Assessment Programme & Environmental Management Strategy

Evaluates the impact of the fishery on non-target species

and the ecosystem Institutional Yes

Adoption of code of practice for bait handling

Reduction in beach litter from rock lobster industry sources

Operational – action Operational – result Yes

Adoption of code of practice for reducing whale entanglements

Minimize interactions between rock lobster fishermen and

whales Institutional Yes

Establishment of SRG on the ecosystem effects of fishing

-Directed research on ecosystem effects of fishing

-Consideration of the ecosystem effects of fishing

Institutional Research Yes

Establishment of SRG on sea lion interactions

Oversee research into development of SLEDs Research Partial

Sea lion mortality Reduction in sea lion mortality Operational – action Partial Abrolhos – lease agreements

Recognition of a responsibility to manage the continued habitation

of the Islands by fishermen Partial

Abrolhos – environmentally sensitive moorings

Reduce impact on fragile marine habitat Operational – action Partial

Abrolhos – waste management strategy, rubbish collection trial and island clean-ups

Requirement for minimizing future human impact

Research Operational - result Partial

Issues not required by the certification

process Environmental benefit Type of gain Cause

Planned introduction of VMS

Monitoring of the whole fleet – faster and more efficient compliance checks on gear usage. Potential to provide research information reducing the reliance on the voluntary logbook scheme

Research Operational – action

No – VMS to be implemented in 16 Western Australian fisheries, including WRL

References Chubb C.F. & Barker E.H. (2000). The western

rock lobster fishery 1993/1994 to 1994/1995. Fisheries Research Report 116. Dept of Fisheries, Western Australia 49pp.

Chubb C.F. & Barker E.H. (2002). The western

rock lobster fishery 1995/1996 to 1996/1997. Fisheries Research Report 135. Dept of Fisheries, Western Australia 52pp.

Chubb C.F. & Barker E.H. (2003). The western

rock lobster fishery 1997/1998 to 1998/1999. Fisheries Research Report 140. Dept of Fisheries, Western Australia 47pp.

Chubb C.F. & Barker E.H. (2004). The western

rock lobster fishery 1999/2000 to 2000/2001. Fisheries Research Report 145. Dept of Fisheries, Western Australia 55pp.

Chubb C.F. & Barker E.H. (2005). The western

rock lobster fishery 2001/2002 to 2002/2003. Fisheries Research Report 149. Dept of Fisheries, Western Australia 60pp.

Chubb, C.F. & Nardi, K. (2003). Towards an

assessment of natural and human use impacts of the marine environment of the Abrolhos Islands. Phase 1 : Data

56

consolidation and scoping. Final report for FRDC Project 2000/166. Fisheries Contract Report No. 2, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, 16 pp.

Campbell, R. (2005a). Historical distribution

and abundance of the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) on the west coast of Australia. Fisheries Research Report No. 148, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, 42 pp.

Campbell, R. (2005b). Report for the Sea Lion

Scientific Reference Group. Fisheries Occasional Paper No. 16. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, 24 pp.

Cary, J.L., Robinson, J.E. & Grey, K.A. (1987).

Survey of beach litter in the proposed Marmion Marine Park near Perth, Western Australia. Collected technical reports of the Marmion Marine Park, near Perth, Western Australia. Technical Series No. 19. Environmental Protection Authority. Perth, W.A.

Department of Fisheries (2005a). Western

Rock Lobster Fishery – Ecological Risk Assessment 2005 Report. Fisheries Management Paper No. 203. Department of Fisheries, Government of Western Australia, 121 pp.

Department of Fisheries (2005b). Western

Rock Lobster Environmental Management Strategy, July 2002-June 2006. March 2005, Fisheries Occasional Paper No 17, 117pp.

Department of Fisheries (2005c). Western

Rock Lobster Fishery effects of fishing on the Ecosystem Scientific Reference Group-Chairman’s Report No 3, February 2005. Fisheries Occasional Publication Department of Fisheries WA No 29 176 pp.

Department of Fisheries (2005d). Integrated

Fisheries Management Report – Western Rock Lobster Resource. Fisheries Management Paper No. 192. 101 pp.

Edwards, D., Pound, J., Arnold, L. & Arnold, G.

(1992). A survey of beach litter in Marmion Marine Park, July 1992.

Environmental Protection Authority. Perth, W.A.

Mawson, P.R. & Coughran, D.K. (1999).

Records of sick, injured and dead pinnipeds in Western Australia 1980-1996. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 82, 121-128.

Penn, J.W., Fletcher, W.J. & Head, F. (eds)

(2005) State of the Fisheries Report 2003/04. Department of Fisheries. Western Australia.

Poynton, D., Arnold, L., Mather, C., Payet, J.,

Chivers, D., Roberts, B., Goutleff, V., Roberts, J., Coates, A. & Birch, D. (2002). A survey of beach litter in Marmion Marine Park, July 2002. Unpublished report for the Dept. of Conservation and Land Management, W.A.

RLIAC (2005). The Western Rock Lobster

Fishery : Three-year management plan strategy. September 2005. Department of Fisheries. Government of Western Australia. 4pp.

Rossbach, M., Melville-Smith, R. & Anderson,

S. (2005). West Coast Lobster Managed Fishery status report. In State of the Fisheries Report 2003/04, eds J.W. Penn, W.J. Fletcher and F. Head, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, pp 14-20.

SCS (1999) Certification Report on the

Western Rock Lobster Fishery in Western Australia. Scientific Certification Systems, California. 125pp.

SCS (2003) Western Rock Lobster Fishery,

2003 MSC Annual Surveillance Report. Scientific Certification Systems, California. 27pp.

SCS (2005a) Western Rock Lobster Fishery,

2005 MSC Annual Surveillance Report: Review of Corrective Actions from July 2005. Scientific Certification Systems, California. 17pp.

SCS (2005b) Western Rock Lobster Fishery

2005 MSC Final Surveillance Report: Review of Corrective Actions from October 2005. Scientific Certification Systems, California. 11pp

57

THAMES HERRING DRIFT-NET FISHERY The species and the fishery Herring (Clupea harengus) is a pelagic species of numerous stocks and races distributed widely across the north Atlantic.

Figure 1: Thames herring (Atlantic herring). Source: FAO The species is found from coastal Canada and USA in the west, across to Iceland and Greenland, and through the North and Baltic Seas in the east (Fishbase). In the North Sea, herring comprises stocks with different spawning seasons and grounds, migration routes and nursery areas (Nichols et al, 2005). Spring-spawners form mainly discrete groups in coastal waters off England, Scotland and Denmark. The Thames herring is one such coastal, spring-spawning group which doesn’t mix with other autumn or spring-spawning stocks (Nichols et al, 2005). Herring are schooling fish and mainly planktonic feeders. Small planktonic crustaceans called copepods are a major part of their diet, although records show them also feeding on small fish such as sprat and sandeels (Fishbase and Nichols et al, 2005). Herring typically spawn on coarse gravel or stony seabeds where its eggs attach to the substrate. The maximum recorded age of herring is approximately 11 years. Records from the United Kingdom show that herring are preyed upon by squid, cuttlefish and bony fish such as cod and tuna (Fishbase). The commercial Thames herring fishery uses drift-nets in a designated area of the eastern English channel in the Thames, Blackwater and Colne estuaries and out to the six nautical mile limit. It has never been a large fishery, with seasonal catches in recent years ranging from 56 tonnes in 2000-2001 down to just 14 tonnes in 2003-2004 (Nichols, et al, 2005). Low demand for Thames herring has seen the number of licenses issued and numbers of fishing trips decline. In 2004-2005 only 13 vessels were licensed to fish in the fishery and only five were active (Nichols et al, 2005).

Only drift-nets with a minimum mesh size of 54 mm are permitted in the fishery, from vessels generally less than 10 metres long (Nichols et al, 2005). A total allowable catch for the Thames herring drift-net fishery is set each year by the UK’s Department of Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) under delegated authority from the European Union and its Common Fisheries Policy. Fisheries in the area of the Thames estuary are regulated under the jurisdiction of the Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee (Nichols et al, 2005).

58

Thames herring are sold almost entirely in the UK as fresh or frozen whole, headed and gutted or smoked product. Fishery assessment and certification The Thames herring fishery, along with the Alaska salmon fishery, was another early test case fishery for the newly created Marine Stewardship Council. A pre-assessment of the fishery was conducted as early as 1997. A full assessment was commissioned by client organisation the Colchester Borough Council in March 1999. By March 2000, the Thames herring drift-net fishery became one of the first to be certified as meeting the standard set by the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The assessment was carried out by an expert team put together by the Netherlands-based certification body Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS) Product and Process Certification. The team consisted of Frank Miller (team leader and assessor) and local specialists Paul Nichols and Dr Paul Medley. In order to objectively determine the fishery’s performance against the Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, the expert team used an assessment checklist of some 107 different considerations. At the end of the assessment the fishery met requirements for a conditional pass. The assessment revealed a number of strengths and some weaknesses in the fishery and a number of conditions for continuous certification were raised. In the earliest days of the MSC programme, some certification bodies, following standard certification practice for other products and processes, referred not to certification conditions but outlined weaknesses that must be addressed through corrective actions. SGS adopted an approach that further split these actions into major and minor corrective action requests (CARs), where a major CAR needed to be addressed before certification could proceed and minor CARs could be addressed during a certification period (thus becoming certification conditions). SGS, in setting certification conditions for the Thames herring fishery, set out six minor CARs and one major, which was later downgraded to a minor CAR. Table 1 sets out the minor CARs. The single major CAR issued (CAR No. 6, against Principle 3, Criterion A.10) related to the regulating authority’s inability to fully close the driftnet fishery should the TAC be reached. Pair trawlers based in Southend also catch Thames herring and their catches were not counted against the TAC. SGS noted that the situation could arise whereby the drift-net fishery could catch the entire TAC before the end of the season, with the pair trawl fleet continuing to catch Thames herring, possibly exceeding the TAC significantly. Such activity could have a serious negative impact on the spawning stock biomass (SSB) and the sustainability of the stock (SGS, 2000). SGS reported in its Public Summary Certification Report (March 2000) that on 13 September 1999 the Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee agreed to develop an appropriate mechanism by no later than 01 October 2001. Based on this undertaking, SGS downgraded the major CAR to a new minor CAR No. 8 (SGS, 2000).

59

Table 1: Six minor Corrective Action Requests for the Thames Herring Drift-net Fishery, March 2000. Source: SGS, 2000.

Post certification audits, outcomes and re-certification Following certification in 2000, eight post-certification surveillance audits on the fishery were conducted by SGS. In its various surveillance reports, SGS recorded the closure of the CARs during the initial certification period (2000-2005). It is interesting to note that CAR No. 8 appears to have been closed by SGS in October 2001, based upon the ability of DEFRA to close the fishery if TACs are exceeded. A full re-assessment for a second certification period was conducted during 2005 by UK-based certification body Moody Marine Ltd, with a successful outcome in December 2005. Only one certification condition was raised, reiterating the concern raised by SGS’s CAR No. 8 about the possibility of exceeding the TAC because landings outside the drift-net area are not fully taken into account against the TAC (Box 1). Our analysis of environmental gain or otherwise reports against this apparent anomaly. Box 1: Single certification condition raised by Moody Marine Ltd in its re-assessment of the Thames herring fishery in 2005 (Nichols et al, 2005).

60

Analysis of environmental gains Data collection Condition 1 (CAR 1), relating to performance against Criterion 1.1 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: o Require adequate data collection and assessments for management of the population. o Require verification of landing data. o Require cross-checking of landings.

Source: SGS, 2000 Type of gain: Institutional and Operational-action By 2001, the Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee (KESFC) and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) was cross-checking landing data from auctions and conducting random vessel inspections. From October 2002 a new licence condition required all vessels 10 metres and under to report the quantity of herring landed from the Thames and Blackwater coastal area to the relevant DEFRA Fisheries Office within 48hrs of completion of landing. Our analysis has led us to the conclusion that the certification condition did not stimulate or cause the changes described above because it is highly likely these changes would have occurred in the absence of MSC certification. Documentation of assessment methods Condition 2 (CAR 2), relating to performance against Criterion 1.1 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: o Require technical documentation detailing how SSB & TAC is calculated.

Source: SGS, 2000 Type of gain: Research At the first audit of the client organisation’s (Colchester Borough Council) performance against certification conditions in September 2000, SGS closed this condition. CEFAS use a standard ICES stock assessment procedure known as XSA (eXtended Survivor Analysis) which incorporates catch-at-age data and catch per unit effort information from the November research survey to produce estimates of the numbers of fish in each age group. These estimates are then introduced into a VPA (Virtual Population Analysis) to obtain and estimate of stock size and fishing mortality (B. Roel, pers.comm). An outline of assessment methods is presented in Roel, O’Brien & Basson (2004). As for condition 1, our analysis has led us to the conclusion that the certification condition did not stimulate or cause the changes described above because it is highly likely these changes would have occurred in the absence of MSC certification. Development of a documented fishery management plan Condition 3 (CAR 3 and later CAR 10), relating to performance against Principle 3 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: o Requirement for development of management plan and management framework.

Source: SGS, 2000

61

Type of gain: Institutional In its 2003 surveillance audit report, SGS reported that objective evidence had been obtained on the condition to develop a management plan. The management plan describes the overview of the fishery, stock status, long-term and specific objectives of the fishery, management measures, fishery liaison and co-management (SGS, 2003). The condition was therefore considered to be met and the CAR was closed. Following a rigorous internal re-evaluation of stock assessment procedures by scientists from the UK’s Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science in 2003 (published in 2004), a trial management system based upon setting three year TACs was implemented (Nichols et al, 2005). The next multi-annual TAC is scheduled for introduction in September 2006 for a period of 3 years. This TAC will be determined by applying a target F=0.21 and will be restricted to within ±40% of the current TAC (i.e. 110 tonnes). This multi-annual approach will be evaluated at the end of 2006 (Roel, pers. comm.). This process of setting multi-annual TACs is most likely to have been stimulated by moves at the European level to implement such an approach for the major fish stocks managed under the Common Fisheries Policy following its reform in 2002. Consultative process Condition 4 (CAR 4 and later CAR 11), relating to performance against Criterion 3A.2 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: o Need to establish adequate consultative process to include all drift-netters and trawler

operators working the area. Source: SGS, 2000

Type of gain: Institutional SGS closed this condition in January 2001. An annual meeting organised by DEFRA and attended by the Inspectorate, CEFAS, KESFC, fish merchants, herring drift fishermen and herring trawl fishermen provides a forum for agreement on a TAC and an exchange of views between industry and CEFAS scientists. Driftnet fishermen are voluntary signatories of a Code of Practice drawn-up by the Thames Estuary Herring Management Group administered by the Essex Estuaries Initiative (Nichols et al, 2005). Our analysis has led us to the conclusion that the stakeholder consultation changes were partially stimulated by the MSC certification because the Thames Estuary Herring Management Group was initially disbanded in 1979 due to lack of support and was only re-activated in 1998 when stakeholders decided to apply for MSC certification (Medley & Nichols 2003). Bycatch and discard data Condition 5 (CAR 5 and later 12), relating to performance against Criterion 3A.8 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: o Data on fishing effort, bycatch and discards is poor and there is no provision for recording

of by-catch and discards on voluntary landing forms. Source: SGS, 2000

62

Type of gain: Institutional Essex Estuaries collect data through the landing data forms submitted by the fishermen. Discards, bycatch and fishing effort information is provided for on updated data sheets. The provision of this information continues to be voluntary and not required by law. We concluded that these changes were stimulated by the certification condition because the provision of scientific data is one requirement of the voluntary code of practice of fishermen within the Thames Estuary Management Group and these fishermen are amongst those stakeholders committed to maintaining MSC certification of the driftnet fishery. Risk to sustainability Condition 7 (CAR 7), relating to performance against Criterion 3A.6 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: o Requirement to address the potential danger of economic incentives contributing to the

non-sustainability of the fishery because of its relatively open access. Source SGS, 2000

Type of gain: Institutional Voluntary quota limits were imposed and agreed through a Code of Practice managed by the Thames Estuary Herring Management Committee. We concluded this was stimulated by MSC certification as the code was drawn up and implemented by stakeholders committed to co-operating with MSC accredited certification bodies (see Nichols et al 2005). Reconciliation of all landings against the TAC Condition 6 (Major CAR 6, later minor CAR 8), relating to performance against Criterion 3A.10 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: o The trawler catch, which operates outside of the regulated drift-net area, is not counted

against the TAC which is set for the entire stock. There is potential therefore to catch more than the TAC. There is a requirement for a mechanism to close fishery when designated catch limit is reached.

Source: SGS, 2000 Type of gain: Institutional The Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee introduced a local bylaw in 2003/04 stating that: o “No person shall remove herring from within that part of the Local Fisheries District which

is situated in the Thames Estuary West of a line of longitude 1˚10’ E after the date determined annually as the closure date of the Thames Estuary Herring Fishery (when the total allowable catch has been taken up”.

In the event that the TAC is taken within the drift net area then DEFRA can close the area west of 1˚10’ E to all driftnet and trawl fishing within 24 to 48 hours. This mechanism to close the fishery satisfies minor CAR 8 (described above), and thus represents an institutional gain linked to certification, but it still fails to address the issue of accounting for trawl catches in the TAC. There exists the possibility (albeit slight under present circumstances) that the TAC may still be exceeded by catches of Thames herring in the trawl fisheries operating outside of the regulated area. Trawl catch and effort has not increased over the last 5 years, and while the demand for Thames herring remains low there is little risk of exceeding the TAC through catches taken outside the area of the drift-net fishery (Nichols et al, 2005).

63

Type of gain: Operational-action The drift-net only regulated area for Thames herring was established in the 1988/99 season. Between 1988 and 1997 the TAC was frequently exceeded (Figure 1). The pre-assessment phase of the certification process was initiated in October 1997 and the TAC was last exceeded (by 2 tonnes) during the 1997/98 fishing season. We concluded that the gain, in this instance, was not linked to MSC certification because anecdotal information suggests that the TAC has not been exceeded due to decreases in catch and effort for reasons other than MSC certification.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year

Cat

ch (k

g)

TAC

Thames driftnet catch

Total Thames herring catch

Figure 1: The TAC set for Thames herring between 1988 and 2004 with catches of Thames herring between 1988 and 2002 (no catch information available for 2003 and 2004 at present). Vertical dashed line represents start of pre-assessment period, vertical solid line represents MSC certification. Source: B. Roel (CEFAS) Protection of spawning stock biomass (SSB) New condition (CAR) raised at 5th audit, 2004, relating to performance against Criterion 3A.11 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: o There is no documented decision protocol for the case of spawning stock biomass (SSB)

falling below its precautionary level. Source: SGS, 2004

Type of gain: Institutional The three-year TAC setting system agreed by DEFRA and industry in 2003 has the stated intention of maintaining the SSB within safe biological limits (Roel, O’Brien & Basson 2004). Consistent with our previous conclusion about this gain, we concluded that this was not stimulated by MSC certification but would have happened even had the fishery not been certified. Type of gain: Operational – result Figure 2 shows a halt of the decline in Thames herring spawning stock biomass during the period that the fishery was undergoing full assessment. We believe this gradual increase in spawning stock biomass (SSB) was independent of the MSC certification and have therefore not made a direct link between this environmental gain and the MSC programme.

64

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

Year

SSB

(ton

nes)

Figure 2: Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) of Thames herring between1963/1964 and 2003/2004. Vertical dashed line represents start of pre-assessment period, vertical solid line represents MSC certification. Source: data supplied by B. Roel, CEFAS Economic benefits Following certification, it was anticipated that the price of Thames herring would increase and thereby return a profit in a market dominated by the cheaper and more abundant North Sea Herring. The price per tonne for Thames herring peaked at £388 in 2000, the year of certification, but dropped thereafter and averaged £328/tonne between the years 2001 and 2004 (Figure 3). Despite its MSC status, the low demand for Thames herring has resulted in a continued decline in catch and effort.

050

100150200250300350400450

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year

Pric

e pe

r ton

ne (£

)

Figure 3: Unit value of Thames herring between 1993 and 2004. Vertical dashed line represents start of pre-assessment period, vertical solid line represents MSC certification. Source: Data on weight and value of West Mersea landings of herring from http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/fishports/ Conclusions Our analysis of the Thames herring fishery has demonstrated that a total of eleven separate ‘gains’ or benefits have been realised across the four categories of potential environmental gain we hypothesised could result from fishery certification. Of these, three we determined were stimulated by certification, one we concluded was partially stimulated and seven do not appear to be attributable to certification at all.

65

The majority of the gains are institutional ones, with the introduction of a range of reporting requirements, new systems for setting TACs, bylaws or voluntary codes and agreements between the management agency and fishermen. Most of these are likely to have happened in the absence of certification. We have concluded that some of the voluntary action taken by the fishermen was stimulated by certification, for example the adoption of a Code of Practice, regular meetings between fishermen and scientists, the collection of bycatch information in voluntary logbooks, and the voluntary agreement on quota limits. The significance of the potential to exceed the TAC because trawl catches outside the certified fishery are not reconciled against the TAC is low at present because the trend in catches being significantly lower than the level of the TAC. This may, however, change if demand for Thames herring were to increase for any reason. As such, the re-certification raised a condition to specifically address this issue. References Fishbase (FAO) www.fishbase.org/ Medley, P. & Nichols, P. (2003). Case Study 3:

The Thames Herring Drift-net Fishery pp 136-144 in B. Phillips, T. Ward & C. Chaffee (eds) Eco-labelling in Fisheries – What is it all about? Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

Nichols, J., Huntington, T. & Hough, A. (2005).

Public Certification Report for Thames Herring Driftnet Fishery, Moody Marine Ltd. Ref: 82017 v5, November 2005. 113pp.

Roel, B.A., O’Brien, C.M. & Basson, M. (2004).

Management options for the

Blackwater herring, a local spring-spawning stock in the Thames Estuary. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61, 297-307.

SGS (2000) Thames-Blackwater herring drift-

net fishery: Public Certification Report Summary. SGS, The Netherlands. 22pp.

SGS (2003) Thames-Blackwater herring:

Fishery Surveillance Report. SGS, The Netherlands. 3pp.

SGS (2004) Thames-Blackwater herring:

Fishery Surveillance Report. SGS, The Netherlands. 5pp.

66

ALASKA SALMON FISHERY The species and the fishery Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) are anadromous fish that spend most of their lives in the sea and return to their native streams to reproduce. The amount of time spent in fresh water varies with individual species but a common factor with the Pacific salmon species is that adult fish die after spawning. Major food items also vary with species but include zooplankton, fish, crustaceans and other invertebrates. The Alaska Salmon Fishery occurs within US territorial waters adjacent to Alaska. Five salmon species are targeted in the fishery: sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka); chum (Oncorhynchus keta); Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). The fishing gear used in the fishery includes purse seines, trolling, drift gillnet and set gillnets. In general, the fishery involves small boats with seine vessels limited to 58 feet and gillnet vessels to 32 feet in length. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has been responsible for management of the salmon fishery in Alaska since 1959 when Alaska became a state. The Alaska state constitution requires that salmon habitat is conserved and protected. In 1959, state-wide harvests totalled about 25 million salmon a year. By 1999 Alaska's commercial salmon catch was 214 million fish, the second largest in the state's history. Management legislation includes establishing open and closed seasons; setting quotas, bag limits, harvest limits, sex and size limitations; establishing the methods and means employed in the pursuit, capture and transport of fish; watershed and habitat improvement, disposal, propagation and stocking of fish; and regulating sport, subsistence, and personal fishing. Fishery assessment and certification The Alaska salmon fishery was an early test case fishery for the newly formed Marine

Stewardship Council. The full assessment process began in March 1999 and was completed in October 2000. In 1999, ADF&G applied to Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) for full assessment of the Alaska salmon fishery against the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The lead auditor from SCS, Dr. Chet Chaffee, pulled together a team of specialists to conduct the fishery assessment: Dr. Dayton Lee Alverson, Natural Resource Consultants, Seattle; Dr. Lou Bottsford, University of California; and Mr. Paul Krasnowski, retired ADF&G.

67

The expert team elaborated the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing into 27 measurable indicators on which to base an objective determination of fishery performance. In assessing the fishery, the various salmon populations were taken into consideration by applying population related performance indicators directly to individual populations where managed directly, or assessing how individual populations were accounted for when populations were managed in groups. At the end of the assessment the fishery was awarded a pass with conditions. The assessment revealed many strengths in the management system and some weaknesses. Ten conditions for continuous certification were raised:

o Determine the number of salmon spawning stocks or spawning stock aggregates in the state that are managed on the basis of (1) escapement goals determined by stock-recruitment analysis, (2) escapement goals determined by average escapements, and (3) no established escapement goals.

o Categorize each spawning stock or spawning stock aggregate according to relevant characteristics, and whether the monitored stocks exploited in the mixed stock fisheries are representative of unmonitored stocks exploited.

o Present the distributions in terms of the number of spawning populations, the number of fish, and the economic value of the fishery.

o Explain how Alaska salmon fisheries will continue to be sustainably managed even if there is an event that changes ocean survivals back to rates equivalent to those seen in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

o Show evidence that the joint stock status report for northern coho required by the Pacific Salmon Treaty is being undertaken in a timely and cooperative manner.

o Explain why ADF&G believes the stocks being co-managed under the PST are considered sustainable based on the current management paradigm.

o Implement a sampling program to identify major non-salmon fish species, birds and marine mammals taken incidentally in the salmon net fisheries of the State.

o Provide evidence and a summary regarding findings on bycatch of non-salmon species taken in the Alaskan salmon fisheries.

o Present information reporting on progress made by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission on reducing the number of permits to the numbers determined to be consistent with the limited entry law on an annual basis.

o Identify long-range research needed to assess the magnitude of the interaction of hatchery programs on the wild stock gene pool and the effect on the reproductive fitness of those stocks. The department must document the programs, policies and regulations and statutes as well as specific actions taken to assure the consistency of the hatchery program with the Genetics Policy.

Post certification audits and outcomes Four annual audits have been performed by SCS on the Alaska salmon fishery, with the fourth audit also marking the beginning of the formal process to re-assess the fishery for re-certification. SCS concluded at the fourth audit that the client organisation, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, continued to meet the standard set by the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing and that all relevant certification conditions had been met to SCS’s satisfaction.

68

Analysis of environmental gains Initial comments All of the gains listed here were gleaned from the written record of the original certification and subsequent surveillance reports. The fishery is currently undergoing assessment for re-certification, thus the certification body and client, at the time of our analysis, were focussing upon the work needed to accomplish the re-assessment. As such, no additional data or information has been added by fishery managers from ADF&G to establish quantitative gains and/or show clear linkages to the MSC process. Target reference points (TRPs) Conditions 1, 2 & 3, relevant to performance against Criterion 1.1 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SCS Indicator 1E):

Within 3 years of certification the Alaska Department of Fish & Game must:

1. Determine the number of salmon spawning stocks or spawning stock aggregates in the state that are managed on the basis of (1) escapement goals determined by stock-recruitment analysis, (2) escapement goals determined by average escapements, and (3) no established escapement goals.

2. Categorize each spawning stock or spawning stock aggregate according to relevant characteristics such as: whether it is a mixed stock fishery, the number of individual stocks exploited, methods used to estimate escapement, whether escapement goals were based on data before or after the mid-1970s, and whether the monitored stocks exploited in the mixed stock fisheries are representative of unmonitored stocks exploited.

3. Present the distributions in terms of the number of spawning populations, the number of fish, and the economic value of the fishery.

Source: Chaffee et al, 2000 Type of gain: None The above conditions required the client organisation, ADF&G, to provide the certification body with a range of information regarding the basis for setting reference points. In relation to the first condition, the implication is that (1) escapement goals determined by stock-recruitment analysis, is better than (2) escapement goals determined by average escapements, which in turn is better than (3) no established escapement goals. It was not possible, at the time of our analysis, to obtain data that would have indicated any trend in the number of salmon stocks in each of those categories before and after certification. Resulting from the certification condition, ADF&G has provided the required information to the certification and the management methods have been better explained in terms of application of Target Reference Points. However, environmental gain, as we define it, in this instance is doubtful. There appears to be no evidence that ADF&G has changed its practices, but rather it has adapted the explanation of their management procedure to better show compliance with the requirements of the MSC standard.

69

Limit reference points (LRPs) Conditions 4, 5 & 6 (numbered by SCS as 1-3 under LRP subject heading), relating to performance against Criterion 1.1 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SCS Indicator IF):

4. Within 3 years after certification ADF&G must provide an explanation to the certification body about how Alaska salmon fisheries will continue to be sustainably managed even if there is an event that changes ocean survivals back to rates equivalent to those seen in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. The explanation provided should at a minimum include:

a) What types of analyses are being conducted to understand how potentially lower ocean survival rates effect population abundance and commercial catches (use stock recruitment data where available).

b) An assessment of the projected distribution of catches over spawning populations, the distribution of fisheries that would be shut down, and the socio-economic impact.

c) A description of how ADF&G would respond to these conditions and to well-reasoned arguments that most escapement goals are arbitrarily set at an average level, therefore are not based on population dynamics and should be lowered.

d) A description of the department’s response to poor salmon survival conditions experienced historically including the 3 years in the early 1970s.

5. Within 1 year after certification ADF&G must provide evidence to the certification body that the joint stock status report for northern coho required by the Pacific Salmon Treaty is being undertaken in a timely and cooperative manner. This can take the form of presenting the certification body with ADF&G's portion of the report, or presenting copies of the correspondence from ADF&G to the appropriate PST representatives regarding progress being made.

6. Within 2 years after certification ADF&G must present to the certification body an explanation of why ADF&G believes the stocks being co-managed under the PST are considered sustainable based on the current management paradigm.

Source: Chaffee et al, 2000 Type of gain: None (against Condition 4) There were some deficiencies in the way in which the management system dealt with potentially depleted stocks; how it detected them, how action was triggered to do something about them and what action would be taken. In addition, the certification body needed to see evidence that the joint stock status report for northern Coho required by the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) had been undertaken in a timely and cooperative way. Finally, an explanation was needed for why ADF&G believes the stocks being co-managed under the PST are considered sustainable. As with the response to conditions 1,2 and 3 under Indicator 1E, the client organisation, ADF&G, provided the required information to the certification body regarding progress in establishing Limit Reference Points. The certification body concluded that ADF&G manages the fisheries with current escapement goals and policies about stocks of concern in such a way as to ostensibly have the operational equivalents of Limit Reference Points ADF&G provided the certification team with the documents and agreements produced by the PST through June 2003. There has been no negative change in stock status. However, equally there has been no new research or other gain. Type of gain: Research (against Condition 5) Since certification, new mark-recapture studies on coho salmon have improved data collection and using those studies, researchers found that the salmon population from the Chilkat river was grossly underestimated (Chaffee, Botsford & Alverson, 2002). In 2005, a letter from the Governor of Alaska, Mr. Frank Murkowski, was distributed at the southeast

70

Gillnet Task Force Meeting. It described progress on the Gillnet Chinook Encounter/GSI Project for the 2004 season. This letter includes the following passage: “To comply with provisions of the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST), to improve Chinook stock assessment and modeling, and to help facilitate Marine Stewardship Council recertification of Alaska’s salmon fisheries as sustainably managed, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) is conducting two related Chinook research studies during the 2004 and 2005 fishing seasons. Specifically, these studies consist of sampling programs to:

1) Estimate the stock composition of the Chinook salmon harvest by genetic analysis of tissue samples.

2) Estimate the incidental mortality of Chinook salmon intercepted in the fishery from the numbers of Chinook salmon caught and released.

3) Document the frequency and nature of incidental interactions with marine mammals and sea birds through onboard fishery observers.”

Type of gain: Research (against Condition 6) ADF&G went beyond the simple requirement to explain why stocks managed under the PST are sustainable and commissioned additional research. While these studies were mandated by the PST and therefore may represent gains that would have been achieved without certification, the link to the certification is directly acknowledged by the Governor in his letter. This “joint cause” of the gain is reflected in the causality score of 0.5 that we have given this indicator. Non-salmon bycatch and consequences Conditions 7 and 8 (listed by SCS as 1-2 under bycatch subject heading), relating to performance against Criterion 2.1 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SCS Indicator 2A):

7. Within 3 years after certification the state must implement a sampling program to identify major non-salmon fish species, birds and marine mammals taken in the salmon net fisheries of the State. The program should be designed to provide a reasonable understanding of fish, shellfish, birds and marine mammals taken incidentally in the fisheries. This requirement can be met in a number of ways. For example, one solution is that the sampling program may involve collection of bycatch information in the course of the department’s test fisheries, and reference to similar data collected by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The certification body is not requiring any specific method, merely evidence that ADF&G is utilizing some process to collect the necessary information to adequately understand bycatch in the net fisheries.

8. Before 5 years pass after certification, ADF&G must provide evidence and a summary regarding its findings on bycatch of non-salmon species taken in the Alaskan salmon fisheries to an accredited certification body.

Source: Chaffee et al, 2000 Type of gain: Research The concern here was that the available information on bycatch of non-salmon species, invertebrates, and birds was largely anecdotal and undocumented, and no formal programme was in place to document the full extent of non-salmon bycatch species and their potential consequences for impacted populations. The types of gains we might be able to document here include improvements in the data on non-target catches, the number of non-target species for which some form of stock assessment has been undertaken, and the level of observer coverage aimed at recording non-target catches.

71

In 2002 ADF&G instituted a program to document bycatch in the department’s salmon test fisheries and the results of this program were provided to the certification body in a report in May 2005. In this report there is a table showing which salmon test fisheries were monitored for bycatch over the period 2002 to 2004. Out of a total of 28 fisheries listed, four were monitored in 2002 (14%), 24 were monitored in 2003 (86%) and all 28 were monitored in 2004 (100%). This shows a clear increase in monitoring effort resulting from the MSC certification (Chaffee, Botsford & Alverson, 2005). In addition to the ADF&G test fishery observer coverage, the National Marine Fisheries Service deploys observers on vessels in the commercial fishery under the mandate of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to observe and report on interactions with marine mammals. The Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program (AMMOP) has provided coverage for Alaska salmon fisheries at various timed since 1990:

• drift and set gillnet fisheries in Prince William Sound in 1990 and 1991, • drift gillnet fishery in South Unimak (Area M) in 1990, • drift and set gillnet fisheries in Cook Inlet in 1999 and 2000, • Kodiak set gillnet fishery in 2002 and 2005.

Target coverage of fishing effort is 5% (see Figure 1 for coverage in the 2005 season). There is no specific indication that effort in this program has changed as a result of the MSC certification programme, although the attention given in the certification report to non-target catches, and particularly impacts on endangered, threatened or protected species, may well have highlighted the need to maintain observer coverage in these fisheries. The AMMOP operates in fisheries placed in either category I or II, but not generally category III under the MMPA22. It is worth noting that, as a result of the Cook Inlet observer program, the Cook Inlet set gillnet fishery was reclassified to a Category III fishery after observers documented no mortality to marine mammals from interactions in 1999 and 2000. Figure 1: Total fishing effort and observer coverage for all regions in the 2005 AMMOP.

Source: MRAG Americas.

22 Category I designates fisheries with frequent ious injuries and mortalities incidental to commercial fishing; Category II designates fisheries with occasional serious injuries and mortalities; Category III designates fisheries with a remote likelihood or no known serious injuries or mortalities.

ser

2005 Total Fishing Effort & Total Observer Coverage

All Regions

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

6/1/05

6/8/05

6/15/05

6/22/05

6/29/05

7/6/05

7/13/05

7/20/05

7/27/05

8/3/05

8/10/05

8/17/05

8/24/05

8/31/05

9/7/05

9/14/05

9/21/05

TE

Fish

ing/

Cov

erag

e D

ays

Total Effort

Total Coverage

DA

72

Management system ~ incentives and subsidies Conditions 9 (listed by SCS as 1 under management system incentives / subsidies subject heading), relating to performance against Criterion 3A.6 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SCS Indicator 3C):

9. Within 2 years of certification ADF&G must present information to the certification body reporting on progress made by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission on reducing the number of permits to the numbers determined to be consistent with the limited entry law on an annual basis.

Source: Chaffee et al, 2000 Type of gain: Institutional There was concern that inadequate consideration was being given to reductions in the number of permits in areas of the fishery that were fully exploited. Also the commercial fisheries loan program did not take into account whether the fishing area in which they would be used was fully exploited. This raises the question; is it now possible to show reduction over time in the number of permits to the numbers determined to be consistent with the limited entry law on an annual basis? According to the May 2005 surveillance report (Chaffee et al, 2005), ADF&G provided the certification body with summaries of permits in various salmon fisheries and regulations governing the limited entry program. ADF&G also provided information about the number of permits actually fished each year to show the reductions in the fishery. At present, there do not appear to be any significant subsidies. It is not clear whether these reductions resulted from decisions taken after or before certification, so the gains have not been attributed to certification. Management system ~ hatchery programmes Condition 10 (listed by SCS as 2 under management system incentives & subsidies subject heading), relating to performance against Criterion 3A.8 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SCS Indicator 3C):

10. The Department must identify long-range research needed to assess the magnitude of the interaction of hatchery programs on the wild stock gene pool and the effect on the reproductive fitness of those stocks. The department must document the programs, policies and regulations and statutes as well as specific actions taken to assure the consistency of the hatchery program with the Genetics Policy.

Source: Chaffee et al, 2004 Type of gain: None In its 2002-2003 surveillance audit report, SCS reported that ADF&G had been asked by the certification body to provide answers to general questions relating to status of hatchery programmes and the basis for determining the effects on wild salmon. In response ADF&G provided SCS with an extensive list of annual reports that detail the locations of all salmon hatcheries as well as the production and releases by hatchery and species (Alaska Salmon Enhancement program annual reports, all of which are available through the ADF&G website). ADF&G also explained the magnitude and effects of hatchery runs on the productivity of particular wild salmon runs, as well as detailed explanations of management measures in place to understand and keep hatchery impacts to a minimum:

73

“The state currently has several policies in place that protect wild salmon stocks from impacts of hatcheries including the sustainable salmon fisheries policy, escapement goal policy, wild stock priority, and genetics policy. In implementing these policies and to provide for harvest of hatchery production, the state has a comprehensive fish transport permitting process, fish pathology permits, and comprehensive planning process in place to achieve utilization of hatcheries while providing protection to wild stocks.” (Chaffee et al, 2003). SCS appears to have concluded that sufficient documentation about existing activity had been provided and subsequently (in 2005) reported that the condition had been met satisfactorily. SCS also concluded, however, back in 2003 that while all of the activity and programmes described above were in place, that questions around hatchery programmes and their impacts should remain an active issue for audit at subsequent surveillance visits (Chaffee et al, 2003). In the 2004 surveillance audit report, SCS concluded the following:

“SCS found no significant changes in process or practice that would change the situation reviewed during the original assessment. However, re-reviewing in total the hatchery policies and the data on hatchery production and wild runs, especially in hatchery intense areas such as Prince William Sound, must be a significant aspect of any re-assessment of the salmon fisheries in Alaska. Specifically, a re-assessment should examine what recent genetic and population research is being conducted to ascertain the ongoing effects of hatchery releases.” Chaffee et al, 2004.

Our conclusion regarding whether any of the activity described above constitutes an environmental gain is that it does not. The activity and programmes appear to have been ongoing during the original assessment and first certification period and do not seem to have changed as a result of MSC certification. Conclusions Our analysis of the Alaska salmon fishery has demonstrated a total of four separate ‘gains’ or benefits across the four categories of environmental gain we hypothesised could result from fishery certification. Of these gains, two we determine were stimulated by certification and two we determined were likely to be ongoing prior to certification and therefore certification was not the primary catalyst for change. One institutional gain was realised, but not attributable to certification: o Reductions in the numbers of permitted vessels that actually fish and no current

subsidies. Three research gains were realised: o Two stimulated by MSC certification:

1. Progress in establishing Limit Reference Points, although this may be a result of improvements in the way ADF&G explained how their management procedure works.

2. ADF&G instituted a programme in 2002 to document bycatch in the Department’s salmon test fisheries; levels of observer coverage have increased; no marine mammal or bird mortalities recorded in test fisheries.

o One was not stimulated by MSC certification:

1. Mark re-capture studies on coho salmon have improved data collection and which have revealed underestimation of population size in one river. Work was ongoing prior to certification and was a requirement of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

74

We also concluded that there were three ‘no-gains’. Although it was clear that additional information had been gathered and produced by ADF&G for the certification body, thus linked to the certification, these appeared simply to be re-packaged explanations of information about ongoing management or research activity. References Chaffee, C., L. Botsford, D.L. Alverson, and P.

Krasnowski (2000) The summary report on certification of commercial salmon fisheries in Alaska. Scientific Certification Systems, California. 33pp.

Chaffee, C., L. Botsford and D.L. Alverson

(2002) Alaska salmon fisheries. Surveillance report: 2001-2002. Scientific Certification Systems, California. 46pp.

Chaffee, C., L. Botsford and D.L. Alverson

(2003) Alaska salmon fisheries. Surveillance report: 2002-2003. 73pp.

Chaffee, C., L. Botsford and D.L. Alverson

(2004) Alaska salmon fisheries. Annual surveillance report as required under the Marine Stewardship Council program: 2003 – 2004. 20pp.

Chaffee, C., L. Botsford and D.L. Alverson

(2005) Alaska salmon fisheries. Annual surveillance report as required under the Marine Stewardship Council program: 2004-2005. 25 pp.

75

BURRY INLET COCKLE FISHERY The species and the fishery

Figure 1: Common cockle. Source: www-vattenkikaren.gu.se

The common cockle (Cerastoderma edule) is found on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland. Its range in the northeast Atlantic extends from north-east Norway to west Africa. The common cockle is a mollusc with a solid, thick off-white, yellowish or brown shell. This well known edible cockle is usually found in the surface sediments of sandflats, mudflats or gravel in inter-tidal zones. They can burrow to depths of five centimetres and are usually most abundant in estuaries and sheltered bays (Tyler-Walters, 2005). Cockles are known as suspension feeders, this means they feed upon organic matter such as plankton that is suspended in the water column. The most significant predators preying upon the common cockle are birds, and in the Burry Inlet cockle fishery in particular, the oystercatcher which spends the winter in the area (West et al, 2003; Hough & Holt, 2001). The cockle fishery, located entirely in the Burry Inlet in south west Wales, has a long tradition and has been in existence since Roman and Mediaeval times (Hough & Holt, 2001). Today, the commercial fishery continues to be based upon gathering cockles by hand. This involves raking and sieving the cockles at low tide in the River Loughor estuary. The hand-raked cockles are sieved through meshes that allow undersized cockles to fall through to be returned to the water (Hough & Holt, 2001). Loughor Estuary is a highly significant site from a wildlife and biodiversity perspective and is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Protection Area under the European Community Birds Directive, a candidate Special Area of Conservation under the EC Habitats Directive and a Ramsar Site under the International Convention on Wetlands. The cockle beds are all found within these designated areas (Hough & Holt, 2001). The South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee (SWSFC) is responsible for administering the fishery through the use of byelaws. Other statutory agencies interact with the Committee on issues relevant to the management of the fishery and its ecosystem. These include the Countryside Council for Wales, the statutory advisor on sustaining wildlife and natural beauty;

the Shellfish Resource Team at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; and the Environment Agency Wales. The SWSFC licenses commercial operators, with the number of licenses varying between 43 and 67 in recent years (Hough & Holt, 2001). Management objectives aim to set quotas each season that are equivalent to 30% of the fishable biomass. The annual quota is divided into individual daily quotas. Apart from restricting the method of fishing to hand-gathering, other management rules include minimum landing size restrictions on the cockles, mesh size restrictions on sieves, ability to implement closures, time and day restrictions

76

(daylight hours, Monday to Saturday), purpose-designed sacks for cockle transport that indicate the fill level, and sack labelling requirements. Cockles are usually sold cooked or preserved in vinegar or brine. Most cockles are sold locally, but some are bought by UK retailers and some are exported to Spain, the Netherlands, France and Portugal. Fishery assessment and certification Following a successful pre-assessment, in March 2000 a full assessment of the Burry Inlet cockle fishery was commissioned from UK-based independent certification body Moody Marine Ltd by the client organisation: the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee. The fishery was certified as meeting the standard set by the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing in April 2001. The expert team from Moody Marine Ltd elaborated the Principles and Criteria into 77 measurable performance indicators on which to base an objective determination of fishery performance. At the end of the assessment process the overall score for the fishery met MSC requirements for a conditional pass. The assessment revealed a number of strengths and some weaknesses in the fishery. Three conditions for continuous certification were raised. These included the need to: o Clearly state long and short term management objectives for the fishery. o Set clear long and short term objectives in relation to ecosystem impacts and mitigation,

and fully cooperate with Countryside Council for Wales and other relevant authorities when doing this.

o Document the methods and procedures relating to growth, natural mortality and other factors and how they are integrated into stock assessments.

One non-binding recommendation was made. A recommendation from the certification body does not require the fishery to take any action, but it does point to an issue the assessment team believed would help improve the fishery: o Studies have been undertaken on the effects on habitat and non-target species of tractor

and suction dredging for cockles. However, no specific studies have been undertaken on the effects of hand-gathering on non-target species and habitat structure. While the effects of hand-gathering are reasonably expected to be minimal, it is recommended that, for completion, this be confirmed by targeted studies.

Post certification audits and outcomes Four surveillance audits have been conducted on the fishery since certification. Overall, Moody Marine Ltd concluded throughout the certification period that the management of the fishery by the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee continued to meet the MSC standard. The client organisation, often working in concert with the other statutory authorities including the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) and research organisations, had made sufficient progress to address and/or meet the conditions of certification. Environmental factors unrelated to the Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing meant that the fishery was closed periodically during the certification period on public heath grounds due to the presence of Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP) in Burry Inlet. The fishery opened after being given a clean bill of health and by 2003, according to Moody Marine, the fishery was zoned in terms of public health assessments and could open and close as appropriate (Hough, 2003a and 2003b). By 2005 the zoning was no longer needed on biotoxin grounds, but the mechanisms to open and close the fishery were available to managers if testing showed closure would be necessary (Hough, 2005). The fishery was effectively closed for much of 2005 in order to protect the stock, and as such the client elected to temporarily suspend its fishery certificate. The client organisation had expressed a desire to proceed with re-assessment (the first certificate would have expired by April 2006). The certificate was re-activated in March 2006 when the re-assessment process began and will be extended by six months to enable the re-assessment process to conclude.

77

Analysis of environmental gains Management system - fishery closure Condition 1, relating to performance against Principle 3 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine performance indicator 3.A2): o Long and short-term objectives for the management of the fishery are implicit in the

regulating order and bye-laws governing the fishery. However, no clearly stated objectives exist (as required Principle 3, Criterion A.2). This must be addressed within three months of certification.

Source: Hough & Holt, 2001 Type of gain: Operational Action By October 2001 Moody Marine, in its first audit of the fishery since certification, determined that satisfactory short and long term management objectives had been set (Hough, 2001). Progress on this condition was deemed to be sufficient to also meet Condition 3 (more details below). In 2005 the new management system allowed and triggered a closure to protect the stock. We concluded that this operational gain had been stimulated by MSC certification. Ecosystem interactions Condition 2, relating to performance against Principles 2 and 3 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine performance indicator 3.A2): o Clear long and short-term objectives have not been set in terms of ecosystem impacts

and impact minimisation/avoidance. However, these are expected to be in place shortly for SAC management purposes and should be adopted for fishery management purposes.

o The South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee must cooperate fully with Countryside Council for Wales and other relevant authorities in setting objectives for the Special Area of Conservation and Specially Protected Area.

Source: Hough & Holt, 2001 Countryside Council for Wales is the main statutory authority responsible for setting nature conservation objectives for the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) within which the fishery operates. While no formalised fishery management objectives are in place to meet these objectives and a longer term process to develop them was being facilitated by CCW, the Sea Fisheries Committee produced interim guidance on objectives for management of the fishery for conservation purposes within the SAC to the satisfaction of Moody Marine Ltd. Type of gain: Research Mussel 'crumble' (young seed mussels and associated debris including shells bound together) forms a crust on top of the cockle beds and prevents hand-raking. The crumble provides a food source for waders and wildfowl using the estuary. Permission is granted by the Sea Fisheries Committee, in consultation with the Countryside Council for Wales to remove the crumble from some areas using dredgers to allow access to cockle beds. Usually mussel seed is then re-laid elsewhere for cultivation purposes. Tonnages removed are recorded. Liaison with CCW is undertaken so that important for conservation area are not affected (Hough & Holt, 2001). A joint study was funded by CCW on the interactions of the main avian molluscan predator, oystercatchers, and mussel crumble/cockle populations due to potential negative impact of mechanical removal of mussel crumble. Results indicate that there are no impacts of current crumble removal on oystercatcher populations (West et al, 2003). Liaison between the Sea

78

Fisheries Committee and the Countryside Council for Wales will continue on this and other matters. The research was underway in 2000-01, during which time the full assessment of the fishery was being conducted by Moody Marine Ltd. The results of the study were subsequently reported in 2003 confirming the initial assessment conclusions that crumble removal did not have a detrimental effect on a species ecologically related to the cockle. Given the timing of the research, however, we concluded that it was not stimulated by the MSC certification. Stock assessment documentation Condition 3 relating to performance against Principle 1 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing): o Details of the method by which growth, natural mortality and other factors are integrated

into the estimate of fishable biomass, although discussed and understood, are not clearly documented. This may have implications for future management in the event of personnel changes etc where this knowledge may be lost. To prevent this, the principles through which these factors are taken into account should be documented. To be addressed within two years of certification (i.e., by 2003).

Source: Hough and Holt, 2001 Type of gain: Institutional Documentation of biomass assessment has occurred. In 2001 the process was initiated through the production of a document entitled ‘Principles of Setting of Annual Cockle Harvest in the Burry Inlet’ and procedures and survey results have subsequently been updated (Hough, 2001). We concluded that the certification conditions stimulated this institutional change. Conclusions There being only three certification conditions and the relatively benign fishing method (in terms of impact on the marine environment), leads us to conclude that the cockle fishery was unlikely to see huge operational environmental gains. The fishery passed the standard without much need to improve its environmental performance. Research confirmed assumptions that there were no negative consequences of the fishery on the dependent ecosystem, therefore not requiring any subsequent operational action. One institutional change to clearly articulate short and long term management objectives did lead to an operational gain in that the objectives enabled the fishery to be closed in order to protect undersized cockles from being fished in 2005. That our study did not uncover major environmental gain is unsurprising. The re-assessment process during 2006 may result in different or more conditions, but an interesting factor in that process may be the changes the MSC has made to its methodology since the fishery was first certified, rather than any inherent environmental deficiency being found in the fishery since its last audit.

79

References Hough, A. (2001) Surveillance visit to Burry

Inlet Cockle Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 5pp

Hough, A. (2003a) Surveillance visit to Burry

Inlet Cockle Fishery. January 2003. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 4pp

Hough, A. (2003b) Surveillance visit to Burry

Inlet Cockle Fishery. December 2003. Moody Marine Ltd, UK.

Hough, A. (2005) Surveillance report: Burry

Inlet Cockle Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 4pp

Hough, A. and T.J. Holt (2001) Certification

report for the Burry Inlet Cockle Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 48pp

Tyler-Walters, H. (2005) Cerastoderma edule. Common cockle. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/Cerastodermaedule.htm

West, A.D., Goss-Custard, J.D., McGrorty, S.,

Stillman, R.A., Durell, S.E.A. le V. dit, Stewart, B., Walker, P., Palmer, D.W. & Coates, P. 2003. The Burry shellfishery and oystercatchers: using a behaviour-based model to advise on shellfishery management policy. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 248: 279–292.

80

NEW ZEALAND HOKI FISHERY The species and the fishery Hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae) is known scientifically as a benthopelagic species, which means it lives and feeds near the seabed as well as in the midwater. Hoki is found only in the southern hemisphere. Adults are usually found at depths below 400 metres, while juveniles are more abundant in shallower waters. They are predatory species feeding typically on other fish, crustaceans and squid. Records from New Zealand and Australia (where hoki is known as blue grenadier) indicate that hoki are preyed upon by bony fishes such as ocean perch, hoki, cusk eels and king dory (FishBase). The New Zealand Hoki Fishery occurs within New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone. The main catching areas are off the west coast of New Zealand’s South Island, Cook Strait and the Chatham Rise to the east of the South Island. Two stock components, “eastern” and “western”, are known to exist in the fishery. Hoki is caught primarily by pelagic trawls during the winter spawning season but can be caught at other times of the year using benthic trawls. The fishery is New Zealand’s largest and is managed by the New Zealand government in collaboration with the fishing industry using a system of individual transferable quotas (ITQs). The total allowable catch (TAC) varies from year to year and has ranged from 250,000 tonnes to 100,000 tonnes over the certification period. According to the Hoki Fishery Management Company, the certification client organisation, most hoki is processed and packaged in fully integrated operations at sea, while the remainder is landed fresh to shore-based processing facilities (www.hokinz.com). Products sold in export markets range from fillets, loins and portions, fillet blocks, value added products, surimi and by-products of fish meal and fish oil. Most hoki is exported to the USA and Europe, with Japan and Australia also being important markets. Fishery assessment and certification The certification process for the fishery started in early 2000 with a pre-assessment, followed

by a full assessment completed in March 2001. The assessment was carried out by an expert team put together by Société Générale de Surveillance Product and Process Certification (SGS). The team consisted of Mr. Aldin Hilbrands (SGS); Ms Jo Ackroyd, (Ackroyd Walshe Ltd); Dr. Trevor Ward, (then of the University of Western Australia) and Edwin Alders, (SGS). The expert team elaborated the Principles and Criteria into 31 measurable performance indicators on which to base an objective determination of fishery performance. At the end of the assessment the overall score for

81

the fishery met requirements for a conditional pass. The assessment revealed a number of strengths and some weaknesses in the fishery. Ten conditions for continuous certification were raised (Boxes 1 and 2). The decision to certify was subject to an objection by a New Zealand based environment group, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. An independent panel including Dr. Rick Deriso (Scripps Institute of Oceanography); Dr. Jake Rice (Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans); Sir Michael Connell (retired judge of the High Court of England) and chaired by Sir Martin Laing (MSC Board of Trustees) undertook a detailed review of the initial assessment, the objection from the environmental organisation and new developments in the fishery since the initial assessment. The panel found that the measures undertaken and the progress made by the client, the Hoki Fishery Management Company (HFMC), since March 2001 justified the continued certification of the fishery. The panel imposed a number of new recommendations. In response to the conditions set for the fishery, the HFMC prepared a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to provide a framework for engaging stakeholders and government in the design and implementation of actions proposed to address the conditions. The additional recommendations from the objections panel were also incorporated to help focus and prioritise actions proposed in the CAP. The ten certification conditions were referred to at the time of certification as Corrective Action Requests by SGS, the certification body. SGS and its expert team outlined what they saw as weaknesses in the performance of the fishery, listing them in the abbreviated form: CAR, to be addressed. Box 1: Original certification conditions (referred to as CARs). Source: SGS (2001)

82

Box 2: Original conditions continued. Source: SGS (2001)

The following six recommendations were made by the objections panel: o Ensure that the research programme being pursued by the HFMC includes a genetic

component. o Seal excluding devices be tested in New Zealand waters as a complement to the trials off

Western Tasmania. o The trawl grounds should be mapped, especially those areas where trawls impact on the

seabed. o Using the information from the mapping of trawl grounds, a preliminary ecological risk

assessment of the impact of the fishery on benthic habitats should be undertaken as a priority, even if the full ecological risk assessment proposed in the CAP requires several years to complete.

o Interim but measurable management objectives for key ecosystem components should be set using existing knowledge, consistent with the principles of the Precautionary Approach, and with the full understanding that these objectives would be revised as the Ecological Risk Assessment is completed.

o The fishery observer programme and the procedures manual be reviewed for effectiveness and efficiency.

Post certification audits and outcomes Eleven surveillance audits have been carried out on the fishery since the certificate was issued in March 2001. Audits of progress in the fishery over the five years of the first certificate have been mixed. While audits have shown progress against a number of CARs (conditions), concerns have been raised about the fishery’s performance by some stakeholders throughout the certification period. On occasion the client organisation was put on notice by the certification body that further progress needed to be demonstrated on particular issues or the fishery’s certificate would have been in jeopardy. As the fishery undergoes re-assessment, environmental stakeholders raised their ongoing concerns about environmental performance in the fishery and whether environmental impacts in the fishery had been adequately addressed throughout the certification period. The fishery

83

remained certified for the first five years and, at the time of writing, is at the final stages of a full re-assessment against the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. Whether the fishery will be re-certified is clearly outside the scope of this project and remains to be seen. Rather than attempt to summarise all eleven surveillance audits since 2001 or pass judgement on the fishery’s performance against the MSC’s Principles and Criteria, we have focussed our attention on determining whether there have been environmental gains (or otherwise) shown over the initial five year certification period (2001-2006) only within the context of our study methodology.

Analysis of environmental gains Spatial structure of the fishery Conditions (CARs) 1 and 2, related to performance against Criterion 1.1 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SGS Indicators 1D and 1E): o Weakness to address – insufficient recognition of spatial structure of the fishery as

current strategy does not sufficiently recognise the requirements for spatially explicit management.

Source: SGS, 2001 Type of gain: Research Better understanding of the spatial structure has allowed a more complex assessment model to be implemented, including a complex annual cycle divided into five steps, and including four types of migration. Type of gain: Operational – action Initial voluntary diversion of effort from the Chatham Rise (eastern stock) to the Southern Plateau (western stock). This reduction has been underway since 1998 (Figure 1). There has also been a reduction in catch of small hoki from the common nursery ground for both stocks. This was implemented through a Code of Practice from 1 October 2000. Analysis suggests a 70% reduction in catch of small hoki (smaller than 60cm) in the nine months from 1 October 2000, compared to the same period a year earlier, although there is some uncertainty about the representativeness of the sampling regime. The Code of Practice includes a monitoring and reporting regime, and industry observer coverage in key areas.

84

Figure 1: Distribution of catches between the eastern and western stocks, showing the required decline in proportion of catches on the eastern stock during and following certification (the two vertical lines indicate the start and end of certification)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

% c

atch

on

east

ern

stoc

k

Management of the eastern stock Condition (CAR) 3, relating to performance against Criterion 1.1 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SGS Indicators 1E and 1H): o Management tools dealing with the eastern stock are not clearly specified and appropriate

to the management of stocks Ensure that the TACC is set at a level that maintains the Eastern stock at or above a level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield or moves it towards that position.

Source: SGS, 2001 Type of gain: Operational – result The assessment has always been separated by stock (eastern and western), and understanding of the spatial structure, whilst not complete, is much improved. Industry led redistribution of effort to the western stock lasted only for one year, after which recruitment failure to the western stock led to redistribution back to the eastern stock. The industry Code of Conduct has led to greater conformity within industry and an apparent willingness to follow a precautionary approach. The result has been that the decline in the eastern stock size had been arrested by 2002 (Figure 2) and is now at 35-42%Bo (unfished biomass). The decline in the western stock, caused by a prolonged failure of recruitment (year classes 1995 – 2001), is also under control although it has stabilised at a lower proportion of Bo (18-23%).

Figure 2: Stock trajectory for the Eastern stock (Sullivan et al 2005).

85

Habitat research Combining aspects of Conditions (CARs) 4 and 5 and the 4th and 5th Recommendations of the objections panel regarding performance against Criterion 2.1 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SGS Indicators 2A and 2C): o Information is not sufficient on the distribution of habitats, major species assemblage

types and the natural functions and trophic relationships among species in the midwater and benthic ecosystems where the hoki fishery operates.

o An ecological risk assessment of the hoki fishery has not been conducted. o The trawl grounds should be mapped, especially those areas where trawls impact on the

seabed. o Using the information from the mapping of trawl grounds, a preliminary ecological risk

assessment of the impact of the fishery on benthic habitats should be undertaken as a priority, even if the full ecological risk assessment proposed in the CAP requires several years to complete.

Sources: SGS, 2001 and Appeal Panel Decision Type of gain: Research Research into trawl placement in relation to benthos, and percentage of bottom/midwater trawls has been undertaken. According to SGS, the certification client was able to show evidence of research conducted to map trawl grounds in the hoki fishery both on a broad scale in the overall fishery and on a finer scale on the Chatham Rise (ENV2003/03) (SGS, 2004). Another project (ENV2000/05) defined areas of high and low fishing intensity by various gear types over time in New Zealand waters, based on a 10 year data set. A further project, initiated before MSC certification, ENV2000/04, entitled ‘Identification of areas of habitat of particular significance to fisheries management’, was listed by the client organisation to SGS for its first surveillance audit of the fishery. It was noted however, that this, and other projects listed, were not specific enough to address issues related to the hoki fishery. SGS did note in subsequent audit reports, however, that the results of the projects referred to above will provide important contributions to understanding and mitigating against unacceptable habitat (benthic) impacts of the hoki fishery. The client organisation has produced a Fishery Environmental Strategic Plan (FESP, July 2004-6) to deal with, amongst others, mitigating benthic impacts e.g. by: o Ensuring that bottom trawling uses existing trawl paths, to the greatest extent possible. o Using mid water trawls wherever possible. o Commit to research to assess the impact of the fishery on benthic habitats – which will be

Government purchased research supported by HFMC as appropriate. o Monitor progress towards overall goal by mapping hoki trawl paths and gear use in 2005

and thereafter every two years. At the time of writing, it is unclear to us whether the FESP has been finalised and placed in the public domain, nor whether the management responses that it contains have been implemented. For this reason, we have not assigned operational gains to the development of the FESP. Although gains have been made with the described benthic impacts research, these also have not yet flowed through to operational gains. This is recognised in the re-assessment recently conducted by the certification body (SGS, 2006) which concluded “Although the main types of impacts with extent and location have been broadly identified across the fishing grounds, the specific impacts (including their frequency and their trends) have not yet been identified” and set a condition for this indicator.

86

Impacts on fur seals and seabirds Combining aspects of Conditions (CARs) 5 and 7 and the 2nd Recommendation of the objections panel, relating to performance against criterion 2.2 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SGS Indicators 2C and 2H: o An ecological risk assessment of the hoki fishery has not been conducted. o The hoki fishery risks to seabirds have been assessed but the assessment of the risks to

seals is insufficient. o Seal excluding devices be tested in New Zealand waters as a complement to the trials off

Western Tasmania. Sources: SGS, 2001 and Appeal Panel Decision

Type of gain: Research Research into seal mitigation methods has been undertaken, but initially was not able to identify effective methods. Research into mitigation of bird bycatch has also been undertaken. Audit methods for accounting for seal and bird mortalities have been improved, but there are still areas and years (since 2001) for which monitoring coverage was not sufficient (>10%) to make estimates of seal or bird catch. Type of gain: Institutional Codes of practice: The HFMC Seal and Sea Lion Code of Practice was developed in 1990s. It was revised in 2001 and 2004. There also now exists a Bird Code of Practice23 and a National Plan of Action for Seabirds. The stock assessment reports have been considerably revised, partly due to the employment by MFISH of an ecosystem components scientist (M.E. Livingston). Type of gain: Operational – action Seal code of Practice: The HFMC Seal and Sea Lion Code of Practice was developed in the early 1990s. Although some of the industry had taken this up, not all had. Uptake was much improved during and after the MSC certification, as a direct response to the conditions (CARs) and concerns of the Objections Panel. The stock assessment report notes that tori lines, Brady bafflers and offal management are all under investigation but their effectiveness is still uncertain. Audits seem to have allowed progress with the CAR to be steered by the certification body SGS. Type of gain: Research Observer coverage: One might have expected that the level of monitoring in the fishery would increase in response to conditions relating to seal bycatch. However, in respect of monitoring of fur seal bycatch, there has been only a small increase in the percentage of hauls monitored. Data from the West Coast South Island fishery presented by Manly et al (2002) reported that the overall level of observer coverage from 1990/91 – 1995/96 was 13.7%. Baird (2005a, 2005b, 2005c) reported that the overall level of observer coverage in 2000/1 – 2002/03 had only increased to 15%.

23 Draft V2 HFMC & Squid Fishery Management Company Code of Practice for reducing incidental catch of seabirds; dated 1 October 2004.

87

There are still significant numbers of fishery areas where the observer coverage is not sufficient to make an accurate estimate of fur seal catch, albeit that the hoki catch from these areas is generally low (Table 1). There are some signs of improvement, for example, while there were three years (1994/5 – 1996/7) in which observer coverage was less than 10% even in the west coast south island fishery (Baird 2005c), these levels of coverage have not recurred, and as can be seen from Figure 3 the variance of the estimates has reduced in recent years. Although we count this as a research gain, some might argue that it is not a particularly strong research gain.

Table 1: Estimates of fur seal capture from Table 5 of Sullivan et al 2005.

Type of gain: Operational – result Seal mortality: Catches of seals have declined, most markedly following the start of certification, in both absolute numbers and rates per tonne of catch (Figure 3). Catches are still quite variable, and trend analysis is preliminary, particularly because the estimates derive from different survey methodologies including one detailed statistical analysis for a subset of years (Manly et al, 2002). As mentioned above, in many areas observer coverage is still too low to make an accurate estimate of fur seal catch (Table 1). Industry reports that this is due to increased uptake stimulated by the MSC/Objections and conditions (CARs). However, there remains some uncertainty about this claim as observer comments indicate that the Code of Practice for Marine Mammals may not be adhered to (N. Walker24 pers comm.). Anecdotal information (N. Walker pers comm.) suggests that the seal catch was higher in 2004/05. The certification body concluded that seal bycatch remains too high a proportion of total fur seal mortality to be considered an adequately precautionary approach to rebuilding (SGS, 2006). Although this is an apparent operational-result gain it is not yet certain that the fishery has solved its bycatch problem, and that catches of fur seals will continue to decline. The gain appears to have been stimulated, but not entirely caused, by the act of certification; as Figure 3 shows the fur seal bycatch estimated from West Coast South Island (WCSI) zone started dropping before the MSC assessment. An added benefit of the high profile of the fur seal bycatch issue has been the application of similar codes of practice and an effective reduction in fur seal catch in the squid fishery and perhaps also in the Southern blue whiting fishery, although there are some uncertainties relating to recent data for this fishery (Baird 2005c data).

24 Nathan Walker, WWF New Zealand

88

Figure 3: Estimated catches of seals in the West Coast South Island Hoki fishery (points + s.d.); rate of catch (seals / 1000 tonnes, assuming catches of birds are predominantly made in the West Coast South Island fishery) and 5-point moving average of catch rates. Data sources: Manly et al 2002 (for 1990/91 – 1995/96), Baird 1999a (for 1996/97), Baird 2005 in Sullivan et al 2005 (for 1997/98 – 2002/03). Dotted line MSC review initiated, solid line MSC review completed.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

num

bers

0

5

10

15

20

25

rate

(num

bers

/ 10

00 t)

estimated seal catchesmoving average (5)rate (seals per 1000 tonne)

Type of gain: None Mitigation of impacts on seabirds: Progress with seabirds has been slower than with seals, and to date there is no evidence of significant gains (Figure 4). Although there seems to have been a drop in rate in the Sub-Antarctic, this is not statistically significant.

Figure 4: Catches of seabirds (+ s.d.) and catch rates (birds / 1000 t) for the West Coast South Island spawning fishery and the Sub-Antarctic non-spawning fishery. Source: Sullivan et al 2005, Baird 2005.

050

100150200250300

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

num

bers

0

2

4

6

8

rate

(num

bers

/ 10

00 t)

bird catch

rate

050

100150200250300

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

num

bers

0

2

4

6

8

rate

(num

bers

/ 10

00 t)

bird catch

rate

89

Management planning Combining aspects of Conditions (CARs) 8 and 9, relating to performance against Principle 3 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SGS Indicators 3C and 3D): o Long-term planning is insufficient to integrate environmental impacts in relation to

in/output control measures in the hoki fishery. o The effective implementation of a comprehensive management system is not sufficient.

Source: SGS, 2001 Type of gain: Institutional Management plan: A codified management plan for the fishery which is comprehensive and integrated that encompasses stock and environmental matters continues to be under development. There seems to be more to accomplish here and the new certification assessment has set a new condition relating to this aspect of the fishery’s management system (SGS, 2006), but there does appear to have been an improvement in holistic management thinking stimulated by MSC certification. Enforcement procedures Condition (CAR) 10, relating to performance against Principle 3 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SGS Indicator 3E): o There is insufficient evidence of enforcement procedures and practices.

Source: SGS, 2001 Type of gain: Institutional Code of practice: The HFMC (Hoki Fishery Management Company) has developed a Deed for specific management measures to bind member companies, which is effectively a contract between HFMC and member companies. However, there is limited documented evidence of effective corrective action and verification in relation to internal compliance and enforcement procedures and some questions about whether enough member companies have signed the Deed to make it effective. The objections panel recommended a review of the fishery observer programme and the procedures manual for effectiveness and efficiency. We have no knowledge of the progress of this review but as noted above the level of observer coverage in the west coast fishery appears to be rather low (15%). Status of the western stock Whilst there has been an improvement in the status of the eastern stock, the western stock has suffered a severe decline since 2000 caused by a run of very low recruitments from the 1995 – 2001 year classes (Sullivan et al 2005). Whilst management action was taken, this has not yet led to a recovery of this stock to previous levels. The new certification assessment by the certification body (SGS, 2006) judged that the management system was not strong enough and set several new conditions related to Principle 1, including setting target and limit reference points (including on fishing mortality) and adopting a rebuilding plan which specifies a timetable for recovery to these target reference points. However, at the time of the first certification the western stock was not considered to be of concern and therefore received no conditions (CARs). Accordingly, we have considered this an area of no-gain, but also one that was not influenced by certification.

90

Conclusions There are clear examples of environmental gain with hoki, despite the original assessment being considered somewhat inadequate with respect to ecosystem interactions and not requiring very specific actions. The industry client appears to have been pre-disposed to voluntary action prior to the assessment, but the certification of the fishery allowed pressure to be brought on non-performing industry components to comply, particularly with codes of practice established by industry groups. It also stimulated the development of management actions that arrested the decline of the eastern stock. Where progress seems to be slower is the speed of actions to address seal and seabird issues. We think this is almost certainly attributable to the lack of identification of specific ecosystem problems during the initial assessment, and the fact that it was not until December 2002 that the Objections Panel decision was made. Research to find successful mitigation measures for bird and seal catch has been slow to deliver, and this shows in the rather erratic recent reductions in seal bycatch and the apparent lack of a significant reduction in bird bycatch. Overall results indicate, however, significant outcomes in terms of both activities (research, compliance with codes for mitigation measures) and results (apparent declines in seal bycatch and stabilisation of the eastern stock decline). And that some of these outcomes were partially stimulated by certification and others were mostly stimulated by certification, whether they were stimulated during the certification process itself or were required by certification conditions. References Appeal Panel Decision. 2002. New Zealand

Hoki Fishery – Independent Panel Decision. www.msc.org

Baird S.J. 2004. Estimation of the incidental capture of New Zealand fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri) in commercial fisheries in New Zealand waters, 2002-03. NIWA report to the Ministry of Fisheries (ENV 2001/03 Objective 1) (Draft Report to the Aquatic Environment Working Group).

Baird, S.J. 2005a. Incidental capture of seabird species in commercial fisheries in New Zealand waters 2000-1. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2005/11. 50pp.

Baird, S.J. 2005b. Incidental capture of seabird species in commercial fisheries in New Zealand waters 2001-2. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2005/12. 50pp.

Baird, S.J. 2005c. Incidental capture of seabird species in commercial fisheries in New Zealand waters 2002-3. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2005/13. 50pp.

Baird, S.J. 2005d. Incidental capture of seabird species in commercial fisheries in New Zealand waters, 2002–03. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2005/2. 50 pp.

Manly, B.F.J., A. Seyb, D.J. Fletcher 2002. Bycatch of fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri) in New Zealand fisheries 1990/91 – 1995/06, and observer coverage. DOC Science Internal Series 41, 39pp. New Zealand Department of Conservation.

Sullivan, K.J.; Mace, P.M.; Smith, N.W.McL.; Griffiths, M.H.; Todd, P.R.; Livingston, M.E.; Harley, S.J.; Key, J.M. and Connell, A.M. (Comps.) 2005: Report from the Fishery Assessment Plenary, May 2005: stock assessments and yield estimates. 792 pp. (Unpublished report held in NIWA library, Wellington.)

SGS. 2001. Public Certification Report, New Zealand Hoki Fishery. 70pp

SGS. 2004. Fishery Surveillance Report No. 9, New Zealand Hoki Fishery. 26 pp

SGS. 2006. Fishery Certification – Full Public Report, New Zealand Hoki Fishery. 158 pp. Available from the MSC web site www.msc.org as at Feb 2006

Watson D.M. 2004. New Zealand Fur Seals: Population Management Plan and Status Report. (Report to Hoki Fishery Management Company Ltd.) University of Otago Wildlife Management Report FS-1/200

91

SOUTH WEST MACKEREL HANDLINE FISHERY The species and the fishery Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) is a pelagic species found in cold and temperate shelf waters in the north east and north west Atlantic. They form dense shoals near the surface, especially between late autumn and early spring. Spending winter in deeper waters, mackerel move closer to shore in spring when water temperatures range between 11° and 14°C. Mackerel feed mainly on zooplankton, small fish and squid, and in turn they are preyed upon by tunas, sharks and dolphins. In waters off England’s Cornish coast in an area known as the “Mackerel Box”, the South West Mackerel Handline Fishery exploits a small part of the western component of the north east Atlantic mackerel stock. The Mackerel Box was created by European Union regulation to protect juvenile populations from exploitation by trawl and purse seine vessels, particularly during winter months. Handlining is the only gear allowed to target mackerel within the box. Annual landings from the fishery have ranged from approximately 680 tonnes to about 1,700 tonnes in recent years. The fishery involves about 300 fishing operators using approximately 180 boats, supporting the livelihoods of several local families in the community. The handline method uses braided twine or nylon monofilament weighted lines and monofilament traces. Instead of bait, lures made with coloured plastic or feathers are attached to the hooks to attract the mackerel. Each handline typically carries 25 to 30 hooks. The Total Allowable Catches for the western component of the mackerel stock are set under rules made through the European Union, Norway and Faroe Islands Agreement and based upon agreed ‘reference points’ indicating stock status. Quotas for the entire mackerel fishery are set under the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy, with the handline fishery directly managed by the UK’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee is also responsible for creating relevant fishery bylaws in coastal waters to a distance of six nautical miles.

The bulk of the mackerel handline catch is sent to wholesalers around the UK who sell it to retailers and restaurants nation-wide. Some mackerel is also exported to Europe. There are now 12 products carrying the MSC logo available for purchase on a seasonal basis from this small fishery. Products include fresh and smoked mackerel, as well as an organic gooseberry and mackerel pate. Fishery assessment and certification The journey towards certification began in October 2000 with a pre-assessment commissioned by the

92

South West Handline Fishermen’s Association from the UK-based certification body Moody Marine Ltd. This was followed by a full assessment which resulted in the fishery being certified against the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing in August 2001. The full assessment was conducted by an expert team contracted to Moody Marine Ltd consisting of Dr Andrew Hough, Moody Marine Ltd; Dr Richard Nash, Port Erin Marine Laboratory, University of Liverpool and Ms Erica Mason, Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, University of Liverpool. As the handline fishery exploits only part of a larger mackerel stock in the north east Atlantic, the health of the ‘western stock component’ of the entire north east Atlantic mackerel stock was taken into consideration in determining the stock status of the fishery. The MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing were translated into 76 performance indicators to enable the team to objectively determine the performance of the fishery against the MSC standard. At the end of the assessment process, the fishery met the overall requirements for a conditional pass. The assessment revealed a number of strengths in the fishery and some weaknesses. Two conditions for continued certification were raised:

1. The first is outside the client’s control and requires that the spawning stock biomass (SSB) of the western component of the north east Atlantic mackerel stock must be maintained above the relevant target reference point. If SSB falls below the reference point, measures must be implemented to allow rebuilding of the stock.

2. The second condition, one within the control of the client, involved putting in place a clearly documented system to identify landing points and landing records within 12 months of certification.

Post certification audits and outcomes Since certification in 2001, three annual audits have been conducted and the client organisation has just agreed to begin the process of re-assessment in the run up to the end of its first five year certificate in 2007. In its 2005 annual audit of the fishery, Moody Marine Ltd reported that the method by which the stock assessment was carried out was changed by ICES in 2004. The changes resulted in significantly different perceptions of the status of the stock (spawning stock biomass – SSB) over the previous ten years. The effect of this was to revise the estimates of SSB downwards by as much as 40% (Hough, 2005). While this is significant, the certification body concluded that given the regulators of the western component of the mackerel stock (under the EU, Norway, Faroe Islands Agreement) had reduced the 2005 total allowable catch by 23% to encourage rapid recovery to a level above the precautionary biomass reference point by 2006, that the fishery management system was adaptive and responsive enough to ensure continued certification. Against a backdrop of a total allowable catch of 420,000 tonnes for all countries and a quota decrease for other UK mackerel quota holders of 37%, the handline mackerel quota holders were allocated an increased quota (Hough, 2005). This is due to lower uptake of quota in the previous year and the ability to carry-over unused

93

quota from one year to the next in the handline fishery. Overall, the fishery has been judged by the independent certification body as continuing to meet the MSC standard and progress against certification conditions has been satisfactory, thus ensuring the fishery has remained certified. Analysis of environmental gains Target stock size Condition 1, relating to performance against Principle 1 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine performance indicator 1.1): o The handline fishery is considered an integral (albeit small) component of the overall

fishing pressure on the Western Component of the NE Atlantic mackerel Stock. Continuing certification is therefore dependent upon the following:

• maintenance of the Spawning Stock Biomass above the target reference point (Bpa

) or • should the Spawning Stock Biomass fall below B

pa, implementation of measures to

allow rebuilding of the stock through a reduction in overall fishing mortality below Fpa

. Source: Hough et al, 2002

Type of gain: None The fishery was certified with the understanding that it, itself, had no control over whether spawning stock biomass (SSB) remained above its precautionary biomass reference point (Bpa), but that at the time of certification stock sizes appeared to be robust and above this target reference point. Unfortunately, new assessments did indeed indicate that SSB has been below Bpa for a number of recent years. This warrants a no-gain in our view because the certification process has not contributed to the environmental gain of keeping stock size above the target reference point. However, the negative gain caused by declining stock size in the south west handline mackerel fishery is somewhat coincidental to the certification process because the certified fishery is incapable of influencing stock size. Landings records Condition 2, relating to performance against Principle 3 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine performance indicator 1.2): o Landings are recorded at each of the major auctions (Newlyn, Looe, Plymouth). However,

handline caught mackerel are also landed in smaller quantities at other, smaller, ports and the process of recording landings is poorly defined and occurs at irregular intervals. A clearly documented system of identifying landing points within the geographical area of the handline fishery and regular recording of landings (at intervals sufficient to allow tracking of landings against quota) is required. This should be put into place within one year of certification being granted

Source: Hough et al, 2002 Type of gain: Institutional Landing points within the handline fishery were identified and landings documented by the South West Handline Fishermen’s Association. Landings at major ports are monitored daily by fisheries officers, while landings in the minor ports are monitored through tracking of sales and transport documents and random inspections by fisheries officers. Landings are recorded by port and method of capture (Hough & Mason, 2003; Hough, 2004)

94

The changes to the identification and documentation of mackerel landings in the handline fishery are a direct consequence of the MSC certification condition, thus we conclude the institutional gain was stimulated by MSC certification. Other non-environmental benefits Certification has proved beneficial to the fishery, particularly by providing an avenue for fishers to publicly demonstrate their commitment to sustainability. It has also led to rewards in the marketplace and improvements in fishery performance. Hough (2005) states that the client organisation, the South West Handline Fishermen’s Association, reports benefits in terms of prices resulting from MSC certification.

"The MSC certification has provided good publicity for the South West handline fishery. This has made people aware of the environmental benefits of the fishery and also the health benefits of eating sustainably caught mackerel. Many buyers will now purchase handline caught mackerel in preference to net caught fish. This has inevitably led to higher prices." David Muirhead, secretary to the South West Handline Fishermen’s Association, March 2006.

The award of MSC certification to the fishery generated publicity for the fishery through significant media coverage of the achievement. The media coverage provided a positive profile for the fishery and drew public attention to the commitment of community-based fishing operators to protect their resource. The recognition granted by the award of MSC certification also attracted funding from a UK-government programme which pays for auditing of the fishery annually by the independent certification body in order to maintain certification. Conclusions There being only two certification conditions, one of which relates to something outside the ability of the fishery client to control, and the relatively benign fishing method (in terms of impact on the marine environment), leads us to conclude that the mackerel fishery was unlikely to see any significant operational environmental gains. The fishery, put most simply, passed the standard without much need to improve its environmental performance. That this study did not uncover major environmental gain is unsurprising. The re-assessment process may result in different or more conditions, but an interesting factor in that process may be the changes the MSC has made to its certification methodology since the fishery was first certified, rather than any inherent environmental deficiency being found in the fishery since its last audit. References Hough, A. (2004) Second annual surveillance

report: South West Mackerel Handline Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 4pp.

Hough, A. (2005) Third annual surveillance

report: South West Mackerel Handline Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 4pp.

Hough, A. and E. Mason (2003) First annual

surveillance report (Report Update): South West Mackerel Handline Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 3pp.

Hough, A., R. Nash, E. Mason (2002)

Certification Report for the South West Mackerel Handline Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 62pp

95

SOUTH GEORGIA TOOTHFISH LONGLINE FISHERY The species and the fishery Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) are found in the cold waters of the southern Pacific and Atlantic oceans, as well as the Southern Ocean. They are found in waters off Chile, Argentina, the Falklands (Malvinas), South Georgia, and Macquarie Islands, as well as in waters around other sub-Antarctic islands and seamounts in the southern Indian Ocean (FishBase). Patagonian toothfish are slow growing and live to a maximum age of about 24 years. They can grow to a maximum length of around 2 metres. Females generally reach sexual maturity at about 10 years of age when they are 90-100 cm long, while males typically mature at a smaller size and younger age. Toothfish are carnivorous, with adults and juveniles feeding mainly on a variety of fish, crustaceans, octopus and squid. Adult Patagonian toothfish are found in deep water between 200 and 2000 meters, while younger fish are found in shallower waters. (Holt et al, 2004).

Source: FAO

The certified fishery is managed by the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (GSGSSI) and located in the GSGSSI Maritime Zone. Although in some places the stock does extend outside the zone these areas represent less than 1% of the stock and none are open to fishing under the CCAMLR management regime. The South Georgia Maritime Zone lies within the area of operation of, and is operated in compliance with, the management regime of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). In some instances, the GSGSSI implements stricter management measures than those required by CCAMLR. The UK is a party and a major scientific and policy contributor to CCAMLR, and representatives of the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are part of the official UK delegation to CCAMLR. Patagonian Toothfish is fished in a number of other locations around the Southern Ocean including other island groups and off the coasts of South America. However, the South Georgia and Shag Rocks stock was demonstrated to be distinct from these other stocks to

the satisfaction of the independent certification body and an MSC objections panel. Fishing occurs primarily at depths of 500 to 1500 metres on the shelf break and upper slope. Although Patagonian toothfish are caught by trawling methods and experimental pots in other areas, the certified fishery uses bottom set longlines. Fish are processed on board the fishing vessels at sea and processing is usually to headed and gutted, or headed, gutted and tailed product, sometimes with other parts of the fish packaged separately (for instance the cheeks). Occasionally fish are filleted. Fish are stored in freezer holds in bags or boxes. (Holt et al, 2004).

96

Patagonian toothfish is a high value fish with major markets in the USA, EU and Japan, often being sold under the name of Chilean Sea Bass, especially in the USA, and Mero in Japan. Fishery assessment and certification Pre-assessment was undertaken in October 2000 and the full assessment process commenced officially in May 2001. Following the resolution of a formal objection, the full assessment was completed in March 2004. The expert team from Moody Marine Ltd elaborated the Principles and Criteria into 78 measurable performance indicators on which to base an objective determination of fishery performance. At the end of the assessment process, following the resolution of the objection, the fishery was deemed to have met MSC requirements for a conditional pass. The initial certificate issued in March 2004 was restricted to a Fishery Management Certificate. Thus fish and fish products from the fishery were not immediately able to enter into further chains of custody and were not eligible to carry the MSC logo until tracking and traceability requirements were met and a joint Fishery/Chain of Custody Certificate could be issued. The full assessment revealed a number of strengths and some weaknesses in the fishery. Ten conditions for continuous certification were raised in March 2004. These included the need for:

1. Ongoing surveillance by Moody Marine Ltd.

2. Confirmation of stock identity, particularly focussing on review of existing tagging and genetic studies, and commissioning supplementary studies if necessary.

3. Continuing formal monitoring, control and surveillance activities by the GSGSSI and development of further understanding of the extent and effect of Illegal, Unregulated, Unreported (IUU) fishing.

4. Development of strategy or research plan to understand fishery impacts on populations of skates and rays (rajid), and development of relevant bycatch mitigation measures.

5. Production of a Fishery Management Plan.

6. Request for external review of CCAMLR toothfish management measures.

7. Taking account of IUU fishing when setting total allowable catches (TACs).

8. Estimate, and if necessary regulate, discard of hooks in fish heads.

9. Research into ecosystem relations of toothfish.

10. Determination of significant interactions with benthic habitat. Recommendations by certification body and/or directions from Objections Panel Recommendations are not conditions for continued certification, nor are directions to a certification body from an Objections Panel. However, should recommendations or directions be acted upon they could lead to positive outcomes for fisheries management or environmental gains in the fishery itself. These recommendations arose from the full assessment and may have been informed by directions by the Objections Panel. 1. Retrospective analysis to test the robustness of the stock assessment and the decision

rule to various uncertainties. 2. Investigate modification of the stock assessment model to take account of between-sex

differences in biological parameters.

a. Simulation evaluation of the robustness of the algorithm for determining catch limits to various uncertainties.

97

3. Consider developing an ecosystem model for the fishery. Post certification audit outcomes In May 2005, a joint Fishery/Chain of Custody Certificate was issued following an independent evaluation of tracking and traceability of toothfish products emerging from the fishery. In their report, Rice et al, 2005, concluded that:

“Moody Marine is now satisfied that appropriate procedures are in place to ensure product so labelled originates from the certified fishery and is in a form appropriate for future traceability. Various techniques are also now available to ensure ongoing verification of product provenance. Accordingly, the [scheme audited] is appropriate for certification and contains precautionary measures appropriate to the value and sensitivity of Patagonian toothfish product. The Fishery certificate has now been re-issued as a joint fishery/chain of custody certificate and the previous certificate withdrawn.”

Once certified, the fishery must also undergo at least one surveillance audit each year to ensure that the fishery continues to meet the standard set by the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, and that the client organisation is meeting its obligations in relation to the certification conditions. In May 2005 the South Georgia Patagonian toothfish longline fishery was the subject of its first annual surveillance audit. Overall surveillance audit conclusions by Moody Marine Ltd (see Rice et al, 2005) were that the overall management of the fishery through CCAMLR and the GSGSSI continues to be at least at the same level as the initial assessment. The client organisation, GSGSSI, has taken appropriate measures to address the certification conditions during the fishery’s first year of certification, thus certification should continue and surveillance audits continue to the original schedule.

98

Analysis of environmental gains Ongoing surveillance Condition 1, relating to ongoing surveillance by Moody Marine Ltd of the performance of the fishery against the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing and progress on meeting certification conditions. This will include a focus on: o Catch limits to continue to achieve long-term management objectives that are at least as

precautionary as those currently used and that catches do not exceed limits to an extent that would have a long-term negative impact on the probability of sustaining the population.

o Planned research and its execution should focus on achieving a better understanding of the impacts of the fishery as set out in the subsequent conditions.

Source: Holt et al, 2004 Type of gain: Research The first annual surveillance audit by Moody Marine Ltd reported that the October 2003 Fish Stock Assessment Working Group (CCAMLR) identified that the old assessment method (estimating recruits at age 4 from survey data and running a stochastic forward projection to the fishery at ages 7+) could not adequately capture the dynamics of the population. The new TAC has been obtained by tuning the generalised yield model biomass to the tagging based estimates of biomass and will be subject to ongoing development. That is, the stock assessment method has been reviewed. The overall TAC for toothfish for 2005 was subsequently set 27% lower than that for 2004 in response to uncertainty over recruitment indices (Rice et al, 2005). It is our conclusion that these changes would have occurred regardless of the certification, thus although there is an environmental gain or benefit it would not be attributable to the MSC programme. Confirmation of stock identity Condition 2, relating to performance against Criterion 1.1 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine sub-criterion 1A.3): o Review existing studies and where necessary commission supplementary studies, on

genetic characteristics of toothfish populations. o Review existing studies and where necessary commission supplementary studies,

involving tagging toothfish to determine movement out of South Georgia into adjacent areas. Similar studies involving toothfish populations in neighbouring areas of the South Atlantic should be initiated to provide information on any migration into South Georgian waters.

o On the basis of genetic and tagging studies, examine various scenarios of mixing of adult and/or juvenile toothfish and the implications of this for the sustainability of the stock.

Timescale: Existing studies should be fully reviewed, supplementary studies identified and scheduled, and an estimation of the implications for stock sustainability carried out within 12 months of certification, i.e. by April 2005. Additional studies to address areas of uncertainty to be carried out over appropriate timescales as agreed with assessment team. Assessment of implications of such studies for the sustainability of the stock to be reviewed as information becomes available and subject during future surveillance audits.

Source: Holt et al, 2004

99

Type of gain: Research Genetic studies have now demonstrated that the South Georgia population of Patagonian toothfish is discrete. Tagging studies have been initiated at South Georgia, and also at the South Sandwich islands (to the east) and on the Patagonian shelf (to the west) which should allow estimation of any residual transfer of animals. Genetic studies. Two studies: (1) Shaw et al. (2004) and (2) Rogers et al. (2006) compare toothfish from South Georgia and Shag Rocks with fish from elsewhere on the Antarctic and Patagonian shelf. Both confirm the distinct genetic identity of fish from South Georgia and Shag Rocks. Research is being continued to include samples from the entire regional distributional range of toothfish, including from the South Sandwich Islands, Chilean and Uruguayan waters. (Rice et al, 2005). A BAS study on mitochondrial DNA provides further evidence that the passage of the Antarctic Polar Front (APF) and the presence of deep-water troughs between the South Georgia and Shag Rocks toothfish populations are major barriers to genetic exchange. Other studies (Reilly and Ward 1999, Appleyard et al. 2002, 2004) have investigated genetic exchange between putative toothfish populations from a number of different regions within the Atlantic sub-Antarctic region including Falklands/Patagonian Shelf, South Georgia/Shag Rocks, Bouvet Island, the Meteor Rise and the Ob and Speiss seamounts. Preliminary results suggest that differences exist between the Falkland, South Georgia and SE Atlantic populations. (Rice et al, 2005). Tagging. 4151 fish have been tagged and released around South Georgia and 161 have been recaptured. Another 4500 fish were to be tagged in 2005. Results so far show fewer than 0.1% of South Georgia animals travel to Chilean waters and none have been reported as recovered from the Patagonian shelf (Rice et al, 2005). Although some of this research was ongoing at the time of certification, it was accelerated by the certification process, and we conclude therefore that it was partially stimulated by it. Continuing monitoring, control & surveillance and understanding the extent & effects of IUU fishing Condition 3, relating to performance against Principles 2 and 3 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine sub-criteria 2C.3, 2E.5 and 3G.2): o The surveillance, monitoring and associated measures required to achieve certification

should be maintained or improved e.g. through improved/increased surveillance or proven effects of Catch Documentation Scheme. Improvements should include the development of verifiable indicators of IUU activity in order to provide data for modelling of the extent and effect of IUU fishing.

Source: Holt et al, 2004 In assessing the fishery’s performance against Principle 2, particularly in relation to fishery impacts upon seabird populations, Moody Marine determined in the full assessment of the fishery that seabird mortality associated with the licensed fishery is negligible and that control of IUU fishing should be the relevant management goal (Holt et al, 2005). Type of gains: Operational – result and operational – action Compliance of the licensed fleet with conservation measures has continually increased over time (CCAMLR 2005) as a result of action by GSGSSI. As a result the number of birds caught in the licensed fishery has also continued to decline. However, the key shift in the number of birds caught happened in 2000, prior to the onset of the certification period, and there has only been small improvement since then. Therefore although there has been continual improvement, this was not initially stimulated by the certification process. It is arguable that improvements seen since 2001 are at least in part attributable to the certification, but the

100

numbers of birds now being caught is so low as to be having a negligible effect on the population. However, when the catches of birds in the IUU and licensed fishery are both taken into account, the change is more dramatic. Given that the control of IUU fishing was a condition of certification, it can be said that the certification has contributed to this improvement. The overall result is that many fewer birds are being caught at South Georgia than were being caught prior to certification.

Figure 1: The decline in incidental mortality of birds in the South Georgia longline toothfish fishery.

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

11997 1999 2001 2003 2005

catc

h ra

te (n

/100

0 ho

oks)

catch rate(birds/1000hooks)

Power (catch rate(birds/1000hooks))

Type of gains: Operational – action and operational - result In auditing the fishery’s performance against Condition 3, which directly related to Principle 3 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, Moody Marine Ltd concluded that the client (Government of South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands), has met and exceeded requirements to maintain and improve monitoring, control and surveillance in the GSGSSI Maritime Zone (Rice et al, 2005). Again, however, this has been a gradual improvement not directly linked to certification.

Table 1: Fisheries Patrol Vessel sightings of IUU incidents by season (Agnew 2004).

Season Coverage around

South Georgia Maritime Zone

Number of IUU incidents sighted

1998-99 8% 1

1999-00 24% 8

2000-01 32% 1

2001-02 35% 0

2002-03 37% 0

101

Fishery impacts on rajid (skates and rays) populations Condition 4, relevant to performance against Principle 2 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine sub-criteria 2A.1 and 2E.5): o A strategy (or research plan) should be developed to obtain reliable information on

fishery-related impacts on rajid populations. The outcomes of this strategy should be sufficient to determine whether, and to what degree, populations are being maintained, depleted, or placed at risk of extinction and to provide points of reference to interpret the effects of by-catches on populations of these species.

o The strategy should include, but not be limited to, population estimates of rajids from bycatch and ongoing surveys and may require further research on the biology of the species concerned. Interpretation should include information from IUU effort estimates. Mitigation measures should be developed as part of, or in advance of, the strategy, as appropriate, and the biological basis of mitigation measures should be established.

Timescale: A suitable strategy/research plan should be developed within 12 months of certification and the strategy fully implemented within three years of certification Note: Also related to Condition 9 – research into ecosystem relationships

Source: Holt et al, 2004 Type of gains: Research and Operational – action Significant new research on rajids, their distribution and discard survivorship, has been undertaken. From the 2003 fishing season (decision in 2002) GSGSSI and CCAMLR required that all rays be cut off from snoods at the water surface. Whilst this is being done, at South Georgia as well as elsewhere in the CCAMLR area, the effect of this on rajid populations has not yet been determined. It is probably too early to see response signals in the rajid populations, but monitoring continues. Although ray research was established before certification, the acceleration of research has been stimulated, at least in part, by certification. Production of a Fishery Management Plan Condition 5, relating to performance against Principle 3 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine sub-criterion 3G.6): The management measures used in the fishery are considered good, but need to be codified. A fishery management plan for toothfish is considered necessary for effective management of the fishery, as described in the FAO code of conduct. This should include: o Contingency plan for future funding should revenues from operating fishery prove

insufficient to fund monitoring and enforcement. o Transparent information on licensing requirements, including a vessel code of conduct. o A recovery plan should the stock fall below precautionary reference points. Timescale: This plan should be completed within 12 months of certification. The content of the plan will be verified on completion and implementation of this plan will be the subject of ongoing surveillance.

Source: Holt et al, 2004 Type of gain: Institutional According to Moody Marine Ltd in its first surveillance report (Rice et al, 2005), a management plan codifying management conditions and measures was implemented in 2004. The condition has therefore been met. Future surveillance audits will focus upon the plan’s implementation and effectiveness. A broader benefit will be realised as the client organisation (GSGSSI) intends to implement management plans for the other fisheries it manages in its Maritime Zone.

102

External review of CCAMLR toothfish management measures. Condition 6, relating to performance against Principle 3 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine sub-criterion 3G.6): o The UK should request an independent, external, review of CCAMLR toothfish

management measures. To be progressed within 12 months of certification. Source: Holt et al, 2004

Type of gain: Research Moody Marine Ltd (Rice et al, 2005) determined that the strict terms of the condition have been met, although the issue will be recorded in future audits as appropriate. An independent, external review was requested by UK to CCAMLR but thus far has not been completed because no reviewers bid for the contract. Partial independent review is achieved through existing CCAMLR review processes and annual audits of compliance with the certification conditions by the independent Moody Marine Ltd assessment team who will detect consequences of poor management measures. However, the activities of the UK, both in questioning the existing model and in developing alternatives, has had far-reaching effects and has resulted in new assessment methodologies being developed for this and other CCAMLR stocks (CCAMLR 2005, Hillary et al, 2005). These developments were the result of consideration of criticisms raised during certification, and expressed in not only the condition but also the recommendations. Accounting for IUU fishing when setting TACs Condition 7, relating to performance against Criterion 1.1 and Principle 3 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine sub-criterion 1E.3 and 3G.2): o A more specific method is needed to take account of potential future or likely IUU fishing

in determining TACs. This should take account of the new, and more comprehensive means of estimating IUU fishing established by MRAG Ltd in 2002.

Source: Holt et al, 2004

Type of gain: Operational – result IUU fishing catches are now taken into account prior to the final calculation of available quota. An example was provided by the IUU fishing undertaken by the vessel Elqui in 2005, whose catches (23 t) were taken off the total available quota. The result has been much closer adherence to the TAC than prior to certification. Type of gain: Institutional GSGSSI has used the fact of MSC certification and the requirements of Chain of Custody certification to require, for all vessels irrespective of whether they are engaging in the chain of custody or not, to have all product weighed by GSGSSI in Stanley or South Georgia. This has also contributed to keeping the total catch within the TAC (Figure 2).

103

Figure 2: Effect of certification on conformity of total catches with TAC. Prior to the start of certification there were large deviations between total allowable and total catch, primarily caused by IUU catches. After certification there has been much closer adherence to the TAC (blue line). Two lines are shown, corresponding to the onset and end of the certification period.

-2000-1000

0100020003000

4000500060007000

80009000

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

catc

h (t)

total catch

TAC

difference

Iuu catch

Discard of hooks in fish heads Condition 8, relating to performance against Principles 2 and 3 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine sub-criteria 2E.5 and 3E.5): o Within 12 months of certification, estimate to be provided, for each vessel, of hooks

discarded as part of fishery waste available to birds, primarily in fish heads. o If identified as a significant issue, a regulation should be put into place to address this,

with appropriate monitoring, as soon thereafter as practically possible. Source: Holt et al, 2005

Type of gain: Operational – action and Operational – result Following initial comments during the full assessment, research was initiated in 2002 which led to the proposal of a CCAMLR Conservation Measure which urged the removal of hooks from offal in the 2003 fishing season. Once the feasibility of doing this had been established, the removal of hooks was made mandatory from the 2004 season. Compliance lagged by one year, and in fact has not yet been completely achieved (CCAMLR 2005) although discard of hooks in offal is now rare. Data from 2002 suggested that for the 70% of vessels that were discarding hooks, hooks might have been discarded in 14.7% of fish heads (J. Clark, pers comm.). Taking into account recent estimates of discarding (CCAMLR 2005), and

o assuming different discard rates for vessels rarely discarding from those operating normally in the fishery;

o assuming that for licensed vessels prior to 2002 (and for all IUU vessels) about 70% of the fleet normally discarded hooks in 15% of fish heads; and

o taking into account the changing mean size of fish caught (see below), we can make some estimate of a hook discard index. The results show that this has significantly dropped both during and since certification as a direct result of actions taken

104

following the full assessment for certification. This operational-action has clearly been stimulated by the certification process. The hook discarding problem was first identified by the MSC assessment, and was immediately acted on both by GSGSSI (improving compliance) and the UK (raising awareness and drafting amendments to CCAMLR Conservation Measures). Thus here is an example of a problem raised to prominence by the assessment and acted on immediately by a responsive, environmentally aware management system, to create a real environmental benefit very soon after certification. Each year since the summer of 1993/94 the British Antarctic Survey has monitored the amount of fishing gear in and around the nests of wandering albatross, giant petrels, black browed albatross and grey-headed albatross. A decline in the amount of gear has been apparent since 2001, even when the decline in the populations especially of wandering albatross has been taken into account (Forster, 2005; Richard Phillips, pers comm), and most of the longline gear appears to be bottom longline hooks and snoods. In fact, just taking the data from 1998 onwards there is an excellent correlation (R2 = .537, n=9) between the index and the occurrence of hooks and other longline gear in wandering albatross nests. The decline appears to be coincident with certification, and linked to the decline in discarding of hooks that has taken place under GSGSSI’s new regulations prohibiting the discard of offal (Figure ). There are similar declines in the amount of fishing gear found in black-browed albatross, grey-headed albatross and giant petrel nesting areas. Has this decline in hooks near albatross nests been caused by the MSC-stimulated improvement in offal disposal practices? The answer to this question is complicated, and that a partial link exists. Wandering and black-browed albatrosses, and to a much lesser extent grey-headed albatross and giant petrels, have been observed to take offal from around toothfish vessels, and wandering albatross are large enough to ingest whole toothfish heads which might contain discarded hooks. Adult black browed albatrosses forage close to South Georgia only during the summer, and the majority migrate to the Benguela Upwelling (to a much lesser extent also the Patagonian Shelf and Australia), during the winter period (Phillips et al. 2005). Breeding and non-breeding wandering albatrosses are present in South Georgia waters year-round, although most foraging usually takes place further north in sub-antarctic and sub-tropical waters except during the brood-guard period (March to mid April) when the foraging range is fairly restricted (Prince et al. 1998). However, both species are recorded by observers as feeding on offal discarded in the winter fishery. If fishing gear is being acquired by these birds from the South Georgia toothfish fishery it must be towards the end of the fishing season in late August. Otherwise, the gear must originate from fisheries in the central South Atlantic and Patagonian Shelf. Grey-headed albatross rarely forage on toothfish offal and more often they have squid jigs in their nests. Although longline fisheries for toothfish on the Patagonian Shelf have declined recently (CCAMLR, 2005), this decline (30% since 2001) is less than the decline in fishing gear seen in albatross nests over the same time period (74% reduction)25. Moreover, the major declines in these fisheries occurred in 2004 and 2005, several years after the decline in fishing gear in nests was first seen. The majority of hooks that have been recorded in nests are bottom longline hooks of the type used at South Georgia and it is difficult therefore to avoid the conclusion that at least some must be acquired from the South Georgia toothfish fishery (this was the conclusion of Holt et al 2004). Certainly, it seems implausible that none have originated from the South Georgia fishery, even if some are coming from fisheries that are further away. A further consideration is that IUU fishing at South Georgia in 1999 and 2000, taking place in the winter and summer, could have contributed significant amounts of discarded fishing gear around South Georgia that would have been particularly available to breeding birds. This may explain the peaks in fishing gear found in albatross nests in 2000. Enforcement action that led to the elimination of this IUU fishery by 2001 is the most probable cause of the return to

25 Note that we assume that hook discarding has remained the same in these Patagonian shelf fisheries over time, which seems reasonable since much of the fishing takes place in high seas waters.

105

“normal” levels of gear in nests in 2001 and 2002 (the last recorded IUU incident was in September 2000, corresponding to the gear in nests data from year 2000 on Figure ; Agnew & Kirkwood, 2005). Thus the decline appears to have three causes: reduction of IUU fishing at South Georgia, reduction in fishing gear available from other longline fisheries in the South Atlantic and reduction in hook discarding in offal at South Georgia, probably in that order. We conclude therefore that there is a real environmental gain in the operational-result category, but that it is only partially linked to the operational action resulting from the MSC certification.

Figure 3: Estimated hook discard index at South Georgia, calculated from both licensed and IUU vessels, plotted with the number of pieces of fishing gear (mostly hooks and lines) in wandering albatross nests and combined other species at Bird Island (Forster 2005). The gear-in-nests data has been corrected for changes in albatross populations, with 2001 as the reference year, and the amount of gear in “other species” nests has been multiplied by 5 to put it on the same scale as the wandering albatross data. The period of certification is shown, and the two vertical lines represent the start and end of certification. A non-mandatory provision for retention of hooks was implemented in 2003 (a) and enforced as mandatory from 2004 (b). Gear-in-nests data refer to the summer immediately following the fishing season plotted (i.e. year 2000 refers to the hooks discarded in the May-August 2000 fishing season and the gear recorded in nests in the summer of 2000/2001)

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

hook

dis

card

inde

x

0

20

40

60

80

100

120fis

hing

gea

r in

nest

s (s

cale

d to

200

1 po

pula

tion

size

)estimated hookdiscard index

wandering albatrossall fishing gear innests

blackbrow, greyhead,petrel combined allfishing gear in nests

a

b

Research into ecosystem relations of toothfish Condition 9, relating to performance against Principle 2 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine sub-criterion 2A.3): o To direct specific research into the ecosystem relations of toothfish. This condition may

be regarded as a sub-section of Recommendation 4. As stated in Recommendation 4, the assessment team recognise that resource requirements to implement a full ecosystem model would be high and the other conditions outlined here are of much greater significance for the fishery.

o This research should therefore specifically include, but not be limited to, identification of predators of toothfish at various life stages and prey of toothfish prior to recruitment into the fishery. This research should be carried out with development of a quantitative ecosystem model in mind, although production of such a model is not part of this condition at this time.

Timescale: A research programme should be developed and implementation begun within 12 months of certification

Source: Holt et al, 2004

106

Type of gain: Research Moody Marine Ltd, in its surveillance report concluded that although a research plan has not been presented, substantive research is underway, particularly on the prey of toothfish but also into other areas of toothfish ecosystem relationships. Much of this is quantitative and so could lend itself to future ecosystem modelling. The intent of the condition was therefore considered to have been met. Further work does need to be done in relation to predators of toothfish at various life stages to fill data gaps, and this will be the subject of future surveillance audits. Determination of significant interactions with benthic habitat Condition 10, relating to performance against Principle 2 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine sub-criteria 2A.1, 2D.1, 2E.1): o The potential for longline fishing activity to significantly impact upon benthic habitats is

generally regarded as being low. However, research should be directed at locating areas of complex benthic habitat, particularly biogenic features, within the areas exploited by fishers. This may be addressed through observer recording of evidence of biogenic features through retrieval in long-lines.

o If such areas are found, efforts to protect these from gear impacts, including those associated with long-lines should be considered and results documented.

Timescale: Collection of suitable information takes place at present and should be continued. Initial mapping of fishing activities and areas of complex benthic habitat should be carried out within three years following certification (or earlier if sufficient information is collected) and further developed thereafter as more information is collected.

Source: Holt et al, 2004 In assessing the fishery’s performance against Principle 2, Moody Marine determined in the full assessment that the vulnerabilities of benthic habitat to static gear had not been studied in South Georgia, South Sandwich Island waters (Holt et al, 2004). Type of gain: Research A new research project to investigate the impact of longline fishing on benthic habitat was initiated in 2004 by the fishery client. One of the first steps was to generate a higher resolution bathymetric dataset than has previously been available for waters around South Georgia. Analysis based on data on benthic fauna, and recorded by observers during 2001-2003 fishing seasons, was undertaken. Preliminary analysis of diversity was also conducted. Models were developed to describe the relationship between biological characteristics and bathymetric features, such as underwater canyons. Because of their significance, the abundance of deepwater corals and sponges was a particular focus for more detailed analysis (Rice et al, 2005).

107

Modification of model on which decision-rules are based Recommendation 2, relating to performance against Criterion 1.1 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine sub-criterion 1A.6): o The certification body is directed [by the Objections Panel] to include as a

recommendation to GSGSSI that it press CCAMLR to see that the model on which the decision rule is based is modified to take account of between-sex differences in biological parameters.

Source: Holt et al, 2004 Type of gain: Research New assessment methodologies have been developed for the stock which will allow a two-sex model to be implemented in future (CCAMLR 2005, Hillary et al 2005). Gains not related to certification conditions or recommendations Type of gain: Operational – result (in relation to MSC Principle 1). Average size of fish in the fishery is expected (by Henderson, 2004) to increase following better management. Average size has indeed increased (Figure 4), and it might be tempting to attribute this to the MSC process. However, it has come about because of other changes to the management system, including directing vessels to fish no shallower than 500m to protect juveniles, which were not required by certification. This requirement was implemented by GSGSSI from the 2004 fishing season onwards, and is not a universal CCAMLR requirement. However, the trend in increased size at capture is not entirely due to changes in fishing depth, and must have some meaning for the population, because the Generalised Linear Model (GLM) calculation is depth-corrected and the trend showing increasing size started well before the depth regulation was imposed. Thus this may be classified as a secondary or unintended effect of certification, or not one at all. Figure 4: mean size of fish caught at a standard depth (1000m) by a standard vessel (CCAMLR, 2005)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

indi

vidu

al fi

sh w

eigh

t (kg

)

108

Discussion South Georgia toothfish presents an interesting case, because there are several conditions and recommendations that have obviously led to improvements, and some improvements that have happened anyway. These latter may have been influenced by the transparency and willingness for change shown by the management authority, which is also evidenced by their willingness to engage in the certification process, even though there was no direct condition. A final interesting dimension to this case is that the South Georgia toothfish stock is the only stock that has currently been certified that is subject to an international (RFMO) management regime as well as a coastal state management regime. The interaction has been two-fold: o Firstly, the international regime has been able to influence the management process at

South Georgia, meaning that many of the major environmental gains were already under way, having been raised in the RFMO agenda (CCAMLR is of course at the forefront of RFMO consideration of ecosystem approaches to fishing).

o Secondly, the MSC certification has had an effect on toothfish management outside the area of the fishery certification. Examples are the complete revision of the assessment methodology for toothfish which has taken place over the last three years; the decision to cut rajids off at the water surface; and the prohibition on discards of hooks in offal. Although CCAMLR may have implemented these things anyway, they were certainly accelerated by input from GSGSSI scientists at CCAMLR meetings.

This close interdependence has meant that it is in some cases difficult to decide whether the MSC certification itself created changes which led to environmental benefits, or whether the certification was benefiting itself from changes of attitude and approach that were happening in the wider CCAMLR community. Such is the nature of the spread of ideas. In this case the situation benefited greatly from the predisposition of both GSGSSI and CCAMLR to consider conservation and ecosystem issues as a priority within their management objectives (Agnew 2004). However, it is probably also true that the MSC certification process, through its transparent review of one of CCAMLR’s fisheries, in most cases supported and accelerated change and in some cases directly stimulated change. Although it is too early to be included in this review, signals at the most recent CCAMLR meeting suggested that the same process will apply to icefish now that the Heard and McDonald Island stock is recommended for certification (at the time of writing, the certification body of record for the Australian icefish fishery is awaiting final submission of an action plan before formally issuing the fishery with MSC certification). References Agnew, D.J. 2004. Fishing South; the History

and Management of South Georgia Fisheries. Penna Press, 132 Beechwood Avenue, St Albans, UK, AL1 4YD. 128 pp. ISBN: 0-9547948-0-X

Agnew, D.J. and G.P. Kirkwood 2005. A statistical method for analysing the extent of IUU fishing in CCAMLR waters: application to Subarea 48.3. CCAMLR Science 12, 119-141.

CCAMLR, 2005. Report of the Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment. CCAMLR, Hobart

Forster, I. 2005. Fishing equipment, marine debris and hydrocarbon soiling associated with seabirds at Bird Island,

South Georgia, 2004/05. CCAMLR, Hobart, paper SC-CAMLR-XXIV/BG/14

Henderson, O. 2004. Examining the environmental benefits of the MSC Certification of fisheries. MSC thesis, Imperial College, London.

Hillary, R.M., G.P. Kirkwood and D.J. Agnew 2005. An assessment of toothfish in Subarea 48.3 using CASAL. CCAMLR, Hobart, paper WG-FSA-05/16

Holt, T., P. Medley, J. Rice, J. Cooper, A. Hough 2004. Certification Report for South Georgia Patagonian Toothfish Longline Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd. UK. 51pp

109

Phillips, R.A., Silk, J.R.D., Croxall, J.P., Afanasyev, V. and Bennett, V.J. (2005) Summer distribution and migration of nonbreeding albatrosses: individual consistencies and implications for conservation. Ecology 81, 2386-2396.

Prince, P. A., J. P. Croxall, P. N. Trathan, and A. G. Wood. 1998. The pelagic distribution of South Georgia albatrosses and their relationships with fisheries. Pages 137-167 in G. Robertson and R. Gales, editors. Albatross biology and conservation. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton.

Rice, J., A. Cooper, P. Medley, A. Hough 2005. Surveillance Report for South Georgia Patagonian Toothfish Longline Fishery:

Certificate MML-FC-003. Moody Marine Ltd. 33pp

Rogers, A. D., S. Morley E. Fitzcharles, K. Jarvis M. Belchier, (2006) Genetic structure of Patagonian toothfish ( Dissostichus eleginoides) populations on the Patagonian Shelf and Atlantic and western Indian Ocean Sectors of the Southern Ocean. Marine Biology.

Shaw, P.W., Arkhipkin A.I. and Al-Khairulla, H. 2004 – in press. Genetic structuring of Patagonian toothfish populations in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean: the effect of the Antarctic Polar Front and deep-water troughs as barriers to genetic exchange. Molecular Ecology

110

LOCH TORRIDON NEPHROPS CREEL FISHERY The species and the fishery Nephrops (Nephrops norvegicus), also known as langoustine, Dublin Bay prawns, scampi and Norway lobster, are found in the eastern Atlantic from Iceland, the Faeroes and north western Norway, south to the Atlantic coast of Morocco and the western and central basin of the Mediterranean (Holthuis, 1991). Nephrops live in depths of between 20 to 800 metres on soft sea beds of muddy clay or sand where they dig extensive burrows. Nephrops grow to about 24 centimetres, with adults usually between 10 and 20 cm. They are nocturnal animals feeding on detritus, crustaceans and worms (Holthuis, 1991). Predators include cod, haddock, whiting, skate and dogfish (Mason et al, 2002).

Figure 1: Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus). Source: FAO

The Loch Torridon Nephrops Creel Fishery is off western Scotland in Loch Torridon and the Inner Sound of Rona in an area closed to mobile fishing gear. Operators use only baited creels (pots) deployed on lines to catch nephrops in the closed area. ICES classifies a number of nephrops stocks in the north east Atlantic into “stocklets”. The stock targeted by this fishery is found in a much larger area of western Scotland and the north east Atlantic and is exploited by a number of fisheries. Stock assessments by scientists from ICES consider all fishing pressure when determining the overall health of the stock. Fisheries in Scotland’s inland waters are regulated and quota is managed by the Scottish Executive, under the ultimate direction of the European Union’s Common Fishery Policy. However, the Loch Torridon fishery is also conducted under the voluntary “Torridon Management Plan”. The European Union has generally set nephrops quotas of over 11,000 tonnes in the management sub-are for all fishing methods and fisheries that exploit the stock. The Loch Torridon portion of that, in turn allocated by the Scottish Executive, has been set at 100 to 150 tonnes in recent years. (Mason et al, 2002). The Torridon Management Plan

includes rules relating to the number of sets, lines, creels and days that may be fished by day, season and year. Escape panels must now be fitted to creels to allow undersized animals to escape and berried females must be returned to the sea in order to protect the breeding stock. The Loch Torridon creel fishing operators established Sheldaig Export Limited, a co-operative management company that takes care of handling live supplies, air freighting and marketing of nephrops from the fishery. Most of the product from the fishery is exported to Spain on a weekly basis.

111

Fishery assessment and certification Following a successful pre-assessment during 2001, the client company, Sheldaig Export Limited commissioned a full fishery assessment from Moody Marine Ltd (UK) in January 2002. By January 2003 the Loch Torridon Nephrops creel fishery had been certified as meeting the standard set by the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The expert team from Moody Marine Ltd elaborated the Principles and Criteria into 85 measurable performance indicators on which to base an objective determination of fishery performance. At the end of the assessment process the overall score for the fishery met MSC requirements for a conditional pass. The assessment revealed a number of strengths and some weaknesses in the fishery. Two conditions for continuous certification were raised during the full assessment, one of which had a number of parts to it, and one non-binding recommendation was made. They included the need to: o Formal implementation of the Torridon Management Plan, incorporating numerous new

elements. o Fully evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of escape panels. o Non-binding recommendation to fully take into account the Inner Sound area when

conducting local stock assessments by extending the government research survey area to include these waters.

Post certification audit outcomes The outcomes of three post certification audits have been published since the fishery was certified in January 2003. Audits ensure the fishery continues to meet the standard set by the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, and that the client organisation is meeting its obligations in relation to the certification conditions. By the first audit two more certification conditions were being audited to ensure continued compliance with the MSC standard: o Evidence of compliance with the Voluntary Code of Conduct. Including audits of creel

numbers deployed; the fitting of escape panels; days fished; berried females landed; data and log sheets collected; gear carried and sets hauled.

o Status of the stock. Each year Moody Marine Ltd and its expert team have concluded that the fishery continues to the meet the standard set by the Principles and Criteria and that the client organisation has been making sufficient progress against the certification conditions.

112

Analysis of environmental gains Implementing the Torridon Management Plan and improving the management system Condition 1, relating to performance against Principle 3 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine indicators: 3A1.1, 3A1.3, 3A3.1, 3A3.2): o Formal implementation of the Torridon Management Plan. Including the establishment of

a body to oversee implementation of the Plan; determining objectives and performance indicators in association with Scottish Natural Heritage and FRS Aberdeen; providing the certification body with a draft of the formal management plan; drawing up contracts between the oversight body and operators; providing evidence of internal review of the Plan and resolution of any disputes; and evidence of training on the aims & objectives of the Torridon Management Plan.

Source: Mason et al, 2003 Type of gains: Institutional The Torridon Nephrops Management Group was formed in February 2003 to oversee the implementation of the management plan. The formal plan, along with newly stated clear objectives, signed contracts, compliance arrangements and evidence of training aided in the implementation of the plan of management (Hough, 2004). As well as the certification body, Scottish Natural Heritage also monitors compliance with the Torridon Management Plan (Henderson, 2004). As these changes were for the most part prompted by specific certification conditions, we concluded that the institutional gain relating to the formation of the Torridon management group was stimulated by the MSC certification. However, the implementation of the plan itself we concluded was only partially stimulated by certification, as the essence of the plan pre-dates the certification, even though some of the specific structures and process changes resulted from the certification conditions. Escape panels Condition 2, relating to performance against Principle 2 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (Moody Marine indicators 2.1.3.3 and 2.1.5.3): o Escape panels are now at the stage of feasibility testing. These should be fully evaluated

in terms of their effectiveness and utility for the fishery as soon as practicably possible. Progress with these will be fully evaluated throughout ongoing surveillance and at key stages in testing and evaluation, including the impact of escape panels on size of catch. Evaluation is expected to be carried out by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) as part of the Loch Torridon Project in collaboration with Fisheries Research Services (FRS) Aberdeen.

Source: Mason et al, 2003 Type of gain: Operational action and Operational result By February 2004, the first annual audit of the fishery showed that a PhD project, co-sponsored by SNH and FRS was underway to evaluate the efficacy of escape panels fitted to creels. The objectives of the research, conducted by Jonathan Adey based at University Marine Biological Station, Millport in Scotland (an institute of the Universities of London and Glasgow), are broader than simply testing the efficacy of the escape panels. The full study is focussing on analysis of target species catch and bycatch, assessment of ghost fishing by lost gear, interactions between the static gear and benthic habitat, efficacy of escape panels and efficacy of measures to manage fishing effort. The research uses diver experiments, static underwater television monitoring of creels and future aquarium-based experiments. The

113

principal researcher reported that the objectives of the study had been influenced by the certification (Henderson, 2004). Early indications from the research supported the conclusion reached by the Moody Marine assessment team during the full assessment that escape panels would eliminate ghost fishing impacts on local populations of target and non-target species (Hough, 2004). Underwater monitoring was able to demonstrate this (Henderson, 2004). The fitting of escape panels on creels was a condition of the Conservation Code of Practice and compliance was judged by Moody Marine to be progressing well, however at the first audit not all creels had been fitted with escape panels. By the second audit, reported in 2005, over 99% of creels inspected had escape panels fitted (Hough, 2005) and by the third audit, reported in 2006, 98% of creels inspected were fitted with escape panels. Both the operational action gain (fitting of escape panels to all creels) and the operational result gain (demonstration of elimination of ghost fishing) we concluded were stimulated by the MSC certification. Compliance with Voluntary Code of Practice Condition 3, relating to Performance against Principle 3 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: o Evidence of compliance with the Voluntary Code of Practice would be audited as follows: - Creel numbers are noted clearly at the end of each fleet. An audit at sea will confirm

the numbers of creels being fished at any one time by any one boat. - An audit at sea and on shore will confirm that escape gaps are fitted to all creels

within the fishery. - An audit of boat log sheets will provide evidence for the number of days each boat

has fished over a set period of time. - A form noting the number and date of any berried prawns seen at the packing shed in

Ardheslaig, will be kept on file and made available for audit. - An audit at sea will confirm that only 2 sets of gear are being fished at any one time. - Boat log sheets (supported by remittance advices) will confirm that each boat has

only hauled one set of creels in a day. Source: Hough, 2004

Type of gain: Institutional At the first audit in February 2004 Moody Marine discovered that boat log sheets were not being completed by fishers in accordance with the Code of Practice. The certification body told the client organisation that the situation needed to be fixed as soon as possible. The Torridon Management Group acted immediately by designing and implementing an appropriate logsheet with input from scientists. (Hough, 2004 and 2005). By the second audit the logsheets were in full use by fishers in the fishery, in accordance with their Code of Practice (Hough, 2005). The Torridon Management Group keeps a tally of the days fished (based upon the logsheets) and advise fishers of the allocated days they have left to fish. Hough (2005) found that no-one had exceeded their allotted number of days fishing. We concluded that this institutional gain could be directly linked with the certification.

114

Stock status and local stock assessment Condition 4 and non-binding recommendation, relating to performance against Principle 1 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: o Status of the stock to be audited each year. o Local stock assessment does not fully take account of the Inner Sound area.

Consideration should be given by the relevant body to extending the survey area to include the Inner Sound.

Source: Mason, 2003 and Hough, 2004 Type of gains: Research and Operational result The Fisheries Research Service (FRS) monitored the local stock in Loch Torridon using underwater video surveys (ROV) and observer sampling of creels, and trawl vessels outside the closed area. The ROV survey suggested an increase in stock density of nephrops burrows and observer data showed an increase in catch rates from 2003 onwards. A correlation between the introduction of escape panels and an increase in larger, more valuable sized nephrops is suggested (Hough, 2005). By February 2005, Moody Marine’s audits reported that Scottish Natural Heritage had undertaken two ROV surveys, examining around 100 sites within the Loch Torridon and Inner Sound areas (Hough, 2005). The 2006 audit report states that additional underwater video surveys were conducted in 2006, although final results had not yet been published (Hough, 2006).

Loch Torridon Nephrops and a creel with

escape panels used in the fishery. © Edward Parker

115

Conclusions The Loch Torridon fishery is a highly selective fishery and as such its broader environmental impacts were rated as relatively low by Moody Marine in its initial assessment of the fishery. However, the conditions did point to there being scope for improvement, some through research and some through formalising institutional arrangements and ensuring compliance with the Code of Practice and Torridon Management Plan. The simple progression from implementing research, acting on results and realising a positive outcome can be demonstrated by the escape panel example. Early indications are that a simple measure to ensure the fitting of escape panels (and the continued monitoring of compliance with the code on this measure) has led to the elimination of ghost fishing, as well as an apparent increase in catch rates and an apparent increase in size of nephrops and indeed stock density in 2005. Although early results in 2006 point to some questions about whether the stock density increase was repeated in and it is still too early to say whether these are permanent environmental gains, the signs are promising. Our conclusions that most of the gains realised were linked to MSC certification were based both on the specific nature of the certification conditions and the actions taken following the granting of the fishery certificate. We do acknowledge that the Torridon Project has created a strong collective commitment from the client organisation, fishers, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Fisheries Research Services at Aberdeen and that this too has played a part in the environmental benefits flowing to the fishery. ReferencesHenderson, O. (2004) Examining the

Environmental Benefits of the MSC Certification of Fisheries. A report to the Marine Stewardship Council. Supervised and edited by David J. Agnew. Renewable Resources Assessment Group, Imperial College London. 101 pp

Holthuis, L.B. (1991) Marine lobsters of the

world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of species of interest to fisheries known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. No. 125, Vol. 13. Rome, FAO. 292pp

Hough, A. (2004) Surveillance report 1: Loch Torridon Nephrops Creel Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 4pp

Hough, A. (2005) Surveillance report 2: Loch

Torridon Nephrops Creel Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 5pp

Hough, A. (2006) Surveillance report 3: Loch

Torridon Nephrops Creel Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 6pp

Mason, E., R.J.A. Atkinson and A. Hough

(2002) Certification report for Loch Torridon Nephrops Creel Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 98pp

116

SOUTH AFRICAN HAKE FISHERY

Figure 1: Shallow-water Cape hake (M. capensis). Figure 2: Deep-water Cape hake

Source: FAO (M. paradoxus). Source: FAO The species and the fishery Two species of Cape hake are found in the cold, nutrient rich waters of southern and south-western Africa: deep-water Cape hake (Merluccius paradoxus) and shallow-water Cape hake (M. capensis). Cape hakes are known scientifically as bathydemersal and live close to the seabed on the continental shelf and slope at depths of between 200 and 850 metres. Spawning occurs in the southern spring to summer, between September and December. Young Cape hakes feed mainly on small crustaceans and some small deep-sea fish, while the adult diet becomes more varied to include small hake, jack mackerel, other fish, small crustaceans and squid. (Cohen et al, 1990). The South African trawl fishery targets both species – deep-water Cape hake on the continental slope in water deeper than 300 metres and shallow-water Cape hake, in the inshore waters of the continental shelf. The fishery operates from the Namibian border southwards, around the Cape and along the south coast to Port Elizabeth and Algoa Bay. Deep-water Cape hake is targeted mainly in west and southwest waters and shallow-water Cape hake is targeted more intensively on the south coast (MML, 2004). In 2000, up to 100 vessels were used in both the deep and shallow water fisheries (61 and 29 respectively). These ranged from ice vessels through to modern factory freezer trawlers (Sauer et al, 2003). The method of capture is bottom trawling. Mainly using a system of total allowable catches (TACs) and quota allocation, the fishery is managed by the Marine and Coastal Management (MCM) branch of South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Annual TACs in the last decade have ranged between approximately 155,000 and 166,000 tonnes (Sauer et al, 2003). The hake fishery is the country’s largest and most valuable, with demersal trawling accounting for approximately 50% of the wealth generated from South Africa’s living marine resources (Sauer et al, 2003). Most of the trawl hake catch is landed as fresh fish and in frozen headed and gutted blocks (65% and 19% respectively), which undergoes onshore processing. The rest (16%) is landed as skinned and frozen fillets (MML, 2004; Sauer et al, 2003). Marketed as Cape hake, hake, South African whiting or Cape capensis, approximately 45% of the South African hake landed catch is destined for export, reaching markets in Europe (mainly Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Germany and the UK), USA and Australia. Fishery assessment and certification After a successful pre-assessment, in August 2002 a full fishery assessment was commissioned from UK-based certification body Moody Marine Ltd by the client organisation: the South African Deep-Sea Trawling Industry Association (SADSTIA). The South African hake trawl fishery was certified as meeting the standard set by the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing in April 2004. The expert team from Moody Marine Ltd elaborated the Principles and Criteria into 82 measurable performance indicators on which to base an objective determination of fishery

117

performance. At the end of the assessment process the overall score for the fishery met MSC requirements for a conditional pass. The assessment revealed a number of strengths and some weaknesses in the fishery. Seven conditions for continuous certification were raised. These included the need to:

1. Strengthen measures to protect bycatch species (bycatch monitoring and mitigation).

2. Address deficiencies in the understanding of variability in hake recruitment (age

structure and size/age/sex & fecundity).

3. Conduct further research in order to better understand ecological relationships in the

fishery.

4. Undertake specific studies on aspects of the impacts of trawling on benthic habitat.

5. Commission an external review of the fishery management system.

6. Provide further evidence that compliance in the fishery is improving (compliance

monitoring).

7. Conduct research to better determine the extent of seabird interactions and impacts

within the fishery.

Post certification audit outcomes Once certified, the fishery must undergo at least one surveillance audit a year to ensure that the fishery continues to meet the standard set by the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, and that the client organisation is meeting its obligations in relation to the certification conditions. In May 2005 the South African hake fishery was the subject of its first annual surveillance audit. Overall conclusions by Moody Marine Ltd (see Tingley et al, 2005) were that the management of the fishery by MCM continues to achieve the level as that evaluated during the 2004 full

assessment for certification. The client organisation, often working in concert with MCM and other research organisations, has taken appropriate steps to address the conditions of certification. In some cases, progress has been more rapid than specified and this is very positive. Cases do exist, however, where progress is slower or less complete than requested and relevant comments were made by the assessment team to assist in further development of measures. However, no new conditions were required. Moody Marine concluded that the client organisation had made enough progress on conditions to ensure continued certification.

118

Analysis of environmental gains Initial comments Quantitative data on environmental gains resulting from certification of the South African hake trawl fishery certification have been difficult to obtain. Although a number of institutional and research strategy changes have been implemented in response to certification conditions, it is too early to demonstrate the longer term environmental effects of these changes. As the time frame for completion of actions in response to the conditions is longer than the anniversary surveillance audit (May 2005), some of the work is still to be completed and/or reported upon. This includes substrate analysis for benthic impacts, the bird mitigation / impact study and the external review of the management by MCM. In addition, difficulties faced by MCM in relation to changes to the allocation of fishing rights have resulted in slower progress on some conditions. The next Moody Marine Ltd audit, due in May 2006, will report on further progress and will determine whether progress continues to be acceptable. What follows is detailed analysis of environmental gains, or otherwise, made as a result of actions taken by the client, researchers, management agency or stakeholders on certification conditions or other actions taken by the client’s own initiative. The analysis is presented in order of the certification conditions and using the categories described in Chapter 3.3 of the main report. That is, as ‘institutional’, ‘research’, ‘operational – action’ or ‘operational – result’ environmental gains or benefits.

Bycatch Condition 1, relating to performance against Criterion 2.1 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: o Measures to protect populations of by-catch species need to be strengthened.

Source: MML (2004)

Various measures have been taken and are being taken to improve bycatch monitoring and mitigation of kingklip, monk and cob species. However, it is too early to develop quantifiable results, in terms of reduced catches of bycatch species, or improvements in stock status. The deep sea bycatch plan remains to be officially endorsed by MCM. A few fishing companies have tested bycatch reduction devices in their trawls, but as yet none have been adopted for widespread use. The 2005 surveillance report noted that cross fishery bycatch limits are difficult to enforce due to the different sectors catching kingklip; it is not clear how over-catching in one sector will affect another sector. The MSC process and the certification are said to have facilitated greater industry buy-in of new bycatch management arrangements. Below we describe management actions that have occurred since certification that should result in positive environmental outcomes in the longer term. Type of Gain: Operational – Action Bycatch limits have been introduced for kingklip and monk:

1. A permit holder’s average catch of kingklip and monk may not exceed the permit holder’s average catch of each species for the period 1998 to 2002, therefore limiting catchers’ ability to expand targeting practices.

2. A precautionary catch limit (UPCL) of 3000 t for kingklip has been set.

119

3. A UPCL of 7000 t has been set for monk which is significantly lower than recent annual reported landings;

4. The same conditions apply to the Inshore Trawl sector with the addition of similar limits on cob catches. Further, if cob caught on any one drag exceeds 20% of the sole or 2% of the hake catch, the fisher has to move a minimum of five nautical miles from the location.

In 2005, MCM introduced time/area management for kingklip by the major fisheries. Specifically, a known spawning area was closed to fishing by both trawl and longline vessels during the period 1st September 2005 to 30th November 2005 (see ). The purpose of this measure was to both protect spawning aggregations of kingklip and help to reduce the overall kingklip catch. The current catch of kingklip (by all fisheries) may be as much as twice the sustainable level, although the estimate of the sustainable level itself is also of concern due to poor data. A precautionary approach has therefore been implemented by MCM.

Figure 1: Map showing the time/area closure for kingklip.

While concerns over the status of kingklip existed before the certification, we concluded that the MSC process substantially facilitated industry buy-in to the new measures (bycatch limits and the closure for kingklip), without which it is doubtful these measures could have been effectively introduced. It is still too early to develop quantifiable indicators for these and other measures in relation to reduced catches of bycatch species or improvements in stock status. Type of Gain: Research Observer coverage in the hake fishery started in the second half of 2002, coinciding with beginning of the MSC full assessment (i.e. after the completion of the pre-assessment) and increased rapidly during the period when the assessment was on-going (). The purpose of this observer programme is both general fisheries monitoring and better recording of bycatch from the hake fishery. While the programme was ongoing during the full assessment, the pre-assessment itself may have accelerated its introduction and the rapid increase in coverage. Thus the programme could be said to be, in part, a response to the MSC certification, particularly with regard to the need for better data on bycatch. Depending on their work allocation, the presence of observers should provide better data on target species, bycatch, and the use of bycatch mitigation measures, but there are no quantifiable indicators of these improvements available yet. The programme is contracted out

120

to a South African company called CapFish. The geographic coverage of the observed trips in 2005 is shown in . Observers have also been deployed by BirdLife South Africa in a separate arrangement in response to concerns about seabird bycatch (see section on the Impact of trawling on seabird populations).

igure 2: Observer sea days 2002 to 2005 for the CapFish observer programme on hake

Figure 3: tion of CapFish observer deployments by fishery in 2005, excluding

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-

02

Sep-

02

Oct

-02

Nov

-02

Dec

-02

Jan-

03

Feb-

03

Mar

-03

Apr-

03

May

-03

Jun-

03

Jul-0

3

Aug-

03

Sep-

03

Oct

-03

Nov

-03

Dec

-03

Jan-

04

Feb-

04

Mar

-04

Apr-

04

May

-04

Jun-

04

Jul-0

4

Aug-

04

Sep-

04

Oct

-04

Nov

-04

Dec

-04

Jan-

05

Feb-

05

Mar

-05

Apr-

05

May

-05

Jun-

05

Jul-0

5

Aug-

05

Sep-

05

Oct

-05

Nov

-05

Dec

-05

Obs

erve

r Se

a Da

ys

TrawlHake Longline

Ftrawlers and Longliners in South African Waters (data provided by CapFish). Vertical lines show dates of the start (July 2002) and end (April 2004) of the MSC certification full assessment process (pre-assessment was completed prior to July 2002). DistribuDecember (data provided by CapFish)

121

Hake recruitment (stock structure) Condition 2, relating to performance against Criterion 1.3 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing o Address deficiencies in the understanding of variability of recruitment to the populations

(i.e., 0 and 1 year olds) and age structure of both species sufficient to fully incorporate these in modelling and the management process. This should focus on the low level of variability in estimated cohort strengths and the effects on this of factors such as mis-ageing and considering the two species in some assessments.

o For fecundity, further data on both species is required to improve the understanding of the

size/age/sex and fecundity relationship (including spawning periodicity). Also, the reliability of ageing, relevant to catch at age monitoring, should be improved. These should be considered in a re-evaluation of sampling requirements and incorporated into the research plan.

o A sampling programme and related research plan should be implemented within 2 years

of certification. This will be subject to ongoing annual monitoring thereafter.

Source: MML (2004) Type of gain: Institutional South African scientists themselves noted that there were deficiencies in hake aging and that fecundity relationships are an issue for the assessment (Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2004). The assessment is subject to biannual review under the BENEFIT26 and BCLME27 programmes and this process had also already noted the problems associated with ageing and fecundity estimation, independently of the MSC assessment. In response to the issues, and independently of the MSC condition, MCM has created two dedicated specialised posts for fish ageing and introduced an ongoing programme of hake otolith workshops (in co-operation with the Namibian scientific establishment) in order to build capacity in the region and standardise hake ageing methods for technicians. The changes outlined above have not yet led to specific evidence of improvements in the stock assessment as it is still too early to tell. However, we expect that quantifiable changes in the future could include: o increased consistency between size and age structure, development of a revised catch at

age matrix. 4.2.1.1.1 o a comparison of catch at age data derived from different age-length keys before and after

the certification. The certification report by Moody Marine Ltd (MML, 2004) noted that the lower than expected recruitment variability and smoothed age structure seen in the assessment probably results from past problems with the aging. It should be possible to quantify the improvements in these areas when new results work their way through the assessment process.

4.2.1.1.2 o reduced variance in age at length or vice versa from improved aging. The first certification surveillance report in May 2005 (Tingley et al 2005) notes that the actions taken to improve the research strategy on aging are “expected to generate the data needed for incorporation into the management process and form part of the routine hake-at-age information required for stock assessments”. The authors also note that “the fruits of these efforts will be long term and ongoing”. Nevertheless, the programmes have been established and progress is being made.

26 The Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction and Training Programme 27 The Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem Programme

122

Type of gain: Research In a similar vein, further data on both Cape hake species are required to improve the understanding of the size/age/sex and fecundity relationship (including spawning periodicity). In response, and again independent of MSC certification, a two year hake fecundity sampling program focusing on gonad development, size and age data was implemented by MCM in September 2004 with specific funds, ship-time and personnel being allocated under the leadership of Dr. Renée Osborne. Proposals for this study were already in the pipeline prior to the certification decision. It is anticipated that this dedicated study will compensate for the current deficiencies in the data. Ecological relationships Condition 3, relating to performance against Criterion 2.1 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing o There are some gaps in the understanding of ecosystem relations due to fishery impacts,

notably the removal of large amounts of biomass (hake and bycatch) from the system and the ecosystem relationships of juveniles. Further research should be undertaken to improve the understanding of ecosystem impacts of the fishery.

Source: MML (2004)

Type of Gain: Research There have been a number of improvements in the research strategy that are likely to result in environmental gains, or at least improved understanding and mitigation of potential environmental losses due to fishing. Additional, interrelated improvements to the research strategy are further elaborated in the following sections on conditions 4 and 7. However, the research activity as not yet led to quantifiable environmental changes.

o In 2003, the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) Programme funded a project entitled “Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries Management in the BCLME”. In 2005, after certification, the emphasis of the South African Science and Modelling Group was transferred to demersal fisheries, especially hake. The project is appraising research requirements for the hake fishery and trophic work is being undertaken.

o Another BCLME Programme funded project has been implemented: “Community Structures on the South Coast”. The study, among other things, aims to document shifts in benthic biodiversity as a result of demersal trawling and long lining in established trawl grounds.

o Exploratory ecological/ecosystem modelling (using ECOPATH-type software) of hake in 2004 began a process that will result in ecosystem models being incorporated into the suite of analytical techniques needed to provide management advice. In the longer term, results and data from the various research projects and activities outlined above and in the next sections should form the basis for such advice and management decisions in the hake fishery.

The research activity described above, reported in Tingley et al (2005), led the independent auditors of the certification to conclude that appropriate long-term research studies have been initiated for hake, well within the timeframe specified in the condition. The auditors also report that, in general South Africa is making considerable advance in ecosystem management of their fisheries, with the most recent policies on long term fishing rights (2006) explicitly recognising the ecosystem approach and its entrenchment in the future management of all South African fisheries (Tingley et al, 2005).

123

The need for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management was well understood by South African agencies prior to certification. However, the certification has had the effect of giving focus to the need to improve the understanding of ecosystem effects specifically related to the hake fishery. We therefore concluded that the research gains identified here were partially stimulated by the MSC process. Impacts on benthic habitat Condition 4, relating to performance against Criteria 2.1, 3A.7 and 3B.2 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing o While information exists on habitat types and fishing areas, sufficient to infer the level of

interaction, specific studies should be undertaken.

Source: MML (2004) Type of Gain: Research Under an industry-sponsored commercial contract, there has been an increase in the area of benthic habitat mapped. Three years of recent data have been used in this project, which includes a GIS overlay of fishing effort data on sediment data and a review of the literature on fishing gear impacts. A document commissioned as a direct result of the certification condition by the certification client, the South Africa Deep-Sea Trawling Industry Association, has been submitted to MCM and is currently being evaluated. This report is expected to be presented publicly in January 2006. The composite charts in and show the broad extent of the data collected. The fishery data collected through this research (bringing fishing activity data into a GIS environment) has led to an increase in the area of benthic habitat mapped.

Figure 4: Distribution of Substrate type relative to trawling (figure provided by CapFish and reproduced with permission from SADSTIA)

124

Figure 5: Distribution of mean annual trawl effort for the years 2001-2003 by demersal

block relative to the actual areas trawled (figure provided by CapFish and reproduced with permission from SADSTIA)

Type of Gain: Institutional The 2004 National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment28 determined that the target for Marine Protected Area designation in the offshore environment should be 20% of each identified habitat. A substantial amount of mapping has been done to identify habitats and make achievement of this target at least a manageable possibility, including the work described above. However, current designation of MPAs falls well short of the 20% target. There are no quantitative data currently available to show progress towards this target over time that are specific to areas impacted by the hake fishery, or that could be specifically attributed to the certification process. The attention given to meeting the needs of habitat protection in the marine offshore environment pre-dates certification. The MSC process may have given this work a greater fisheries focus than it would otherwise have had, but the incremental level of gain resulting from this is probably negligible.

28 Report commissioned by Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) as part of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and co-funded by DEAT and the South African National Biodiversity Institute.

125

Impact of trawling on seabird populations Condition 7, relating to performance against Criterion 2.1 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing o The impact of fishing on seabirds by trawling has been generally considered insignificant.

However, recent studies in other fisheries (notably in the Falkland Islands) have identified previously unconsidered interactions between trawl fisheries and seabird populations. Accordingly, appropriate and quantifiable studies should be carried out within the trawl industry (representing the various geographical areas in which fishing takes place) to determine the extent of interactions. The results of these studies should be considered in relation to the status of affected populations. Appropriate mitigation measures should be implemented where trawl fishing constitutes an important component of total mortality on protected or threatened populations.

Source: MML (2004)

Type of Gain: Research In the year prior to MSC certification, BirdLife South Africa (an important environmental stakeholder) placed an observer on one fishing trip per month to begin evaluating seabird bycatch in the fishery through a collaborative project with Irvine and Johnson (one of South Africa’s major fishing companies). At the prompting of BirdLife South Africa, the certification process highlighted the need for an assessment of seabird bycatch in the bottom trawl fishery and in time is likely to aid reduction of any bycatch (Peterson29 pers. comm.). After the seabird bycatch condition was raised in the certification, the certification client SADSTIA30 contracted BirdLife South Africa to investigate the problem by placing additional observers on vessels increasing data collection activity fleet wide (see Table ). This essentially doubled the coverage. This observer coverage is additional to that described previously under the heading of fish bycatch.

Table 1 Observer deployments in the Birdlife South Africa / I&J seabird interaction observer programme for 2004 and 2005 (data supplied by Samantha Peterson, Birdlife South Africa and Barry Watkins, Seabird Unit, FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology University of Cape Town)

Year Observer

Days Total hauls observed

Total hauls fished

(approximate)

Coverage level

(approximate) 2004 58 121 40000 0.3 2005 77 220 50000 0.4

Observers collect data on seabird mortality, seabird abundance and environmental conditions. These data have not yet been analysed, but it is already clear that seabird mortality by warp collision is more significant than previously thought and mitigation trials have begun. How these will progress and how they will be taken up by the fishery remains to be seen. The observer data will be analysed and mitigation trials finished by the end of 2006 in order for implementation to begin in the period late 2006 to early 2007.

29 Marine Programme Manager, BirdLife & WWF Responsible Fisheries Programme, BirdLife South Africa 30 South African Deep-Sea Trawling Industry Association

126

External review of management Condition 5, relating to performance against Criterion 3A.1 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing o Mechanisms exist to allow for external reviews of the management system. Reviews of

the assessment have taken place, but reviews of the management system have yet to be commissioned, but these have not yet been implemented.

Source: MML (2004)

Type of gain: Institutional According to the May 2005 surveillance report, the client organisation SADSTIA, with MCM co-operation, has initiated a process of external review of the fisheries management of the hake trawl fishery and the arrangements appear to be satisfactory. The review is planned to proceed in January 2006. This is a direct result of the certification condition. Compliance monitoring Condition 6, relating to performance against Criterion 3B.5 of MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing o Although compliance is generally good, occasional transgressions are recorded within the

sector. Evidence should be provided that compliance in the hake trawl sector is improving.

Source: MML (2004)

Type of Gain: Institutional According to the auditors, compliance and monitoring in the hake fishery is improving. Significant monitoring, control and surveillance measures have been introduced by MCM since certification of the hake fishery (Tingley et al, 2005): o Two new Environmental Protection Vessels have been commissioned (one large offshore

vessel and one inshore vessel) and a further two inshore vessels were expected to be received in 2005. The next surveillance audit will report on their status.

o Forty-two new Fishery Control Officers were recruited in 2004-5. Three officers have already received specialist investigative and forensics training and the rest will receive training in various aspects of monitoring, control and surveillance.

o All fishing vessels in the hake fleet now have operational Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and tougher permit conditions were introduced for the 2005 fishing season.

While a formal review of compliance was not been presented to the independent certification body auditing progress in the fishery, MCM provided information that no regulatory infringements occurred during the reporting period. A formal review is due to be completed by January 2006, the results of which will be presented in the next Moody Marine Ltd surveillance report. We note that there are too few compliance cases to develop any kind of quantitative trend analysis relating to this certification condition and it is unclear to us whether or not the gains made on this condition were stimulated by the certification.

127

Conclusions Our analysis of the South African hake trawl fishery has demonstrated that a total of eleven separate ‘gains’ or benefits have been realised across the four categories of potential environmental gain we hypothesised could result from fishery certification. Of these, five were stimulated by or directly attributable to certification, two we conclude were partially stimulated by certification attribute, in three cases certification does not appear to be the primary catalyst for change and, in one case we are unable to determine whether or not there is a direct causal link. Three institutional gains were realised.

o One was generated by certification conditions: 1. Management system to be subject to external review for the first time in January

2006.

o Two were ongoing prior to certification and not stimulated by certification. 1. New scientific posts established and otolith workshops organised. 2. Targets established for designation of MPAs, including offshore environment.

Five research gains were realised.

o Two were stimulated by certification and the conditions raised: 1. Increases in area of benthic habitat mapped with GIS overlay. 2. Increased observer coverage specifically targeted at monitoring seabird

interactions with fishing gear.

o Two were partially stimulated by certification. 1. The fishery observer programme was established following pre-assessment and

continued during the full certification assessment, but the pre-assessment may have accelerated its introduction and rapid increase in coverage.

2. General improvements in understanding ecological relationships through additional research. The need for taking an ecosystem approach was well understood prior to certification, but certification did help give focus to the need to specifically focus on ecological relationships in the hake fishery.

o One was identified as a need prior to certification with a proposal already in the pipeline and therefore certification was not the stimulus for change.

1. Two-year hake fecundity sampling programme initiated. Two operational – action gains were realised.

o Both stimulated by certification. Concerns about kingklip bycatch pre-date certification, however since certification the MSC process is said to have facilitated greater industry buy-in to two new measures:

1. Kingklip, monk & cob bycatch limits have been introduced to the hake trawl fishery.

2. The kingklip spawning area was closed for three months in 2005. One operational – result gains has been realised.

o Unclear whether the result is related to certification conditions: 1. Compliance appears to have improved in the fishery.

In the longer term, if progress continues we anticipate that institutional, research and operational – action gains would ultimately translate into operational results – i.e., positive outcomes and actual changes on or in the water. Future analysis should focus on the outcomes of the changes and gains that have been realised in the South African hake trawl fishery so far.

128

References Cohen, D.M., Inada T., Iwamoto T., and

Scialabba N. (1990). FAO species catalogue. Vol. 10. Gadiform fishes of the world (Order Gadiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of cods, hakes, grenadiers and other gadiform fishes known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. No. 125, Vol. 10. Rome, FAO. 1990. 442 p.

MML (2004). Final Certification Report for

South African Hake Trawl Fishery Client: South African Deep-Sea Trawling Industry Association. Moody Marine Ltd, UK. 45 pp

Rademeyer R. A and Butterworth D. S. (2004).

Revised assessments of the Merluccius paradoxus and M. capensis resources for the south and west coasts combined. MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment and

Management Group), Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa, November 2004. WG/11/04/D:H:25.

Sauer, W.H.H., Hecht, T., Britz, P.J. and

Mather, D. (2003). An Economic and Sectoral Study of the South African Fishing Industry. Volume 2: Fishery profiles. Report prepared for Marine and Coastal Management by Rhodes University. South Africa. 312 pp

Tingley, G., Powers, J. Japp D., and Hough A.

(2005). Surveillance Report, South African Hake Trawl Fishery. Certificate No.: MML-FC-005. Moody Marine Ltd. May 2005. www.msc.org

129

MEXICAN BAJA CALIFORNIA RED ROCK LOBSTER FISHERY The species and the fishery Red rock lobster (Panulirus interruptus), also known as California spiny lobster, is a species of lobster without claws. It lives in the eastern Pacific from southern California, USA southwards to Baja California, Mexico and into California Bay, Mexico (Holthius, 1991). Red rock lobster live on rocky substrates from tide pools to depths of about 100 metres. They are more frequently found in the deeper waters (Holthius, 1991). Breeding and hatching occur in shallow waters in spring, after which adults return to deeper waters in the autumn. Females breed earlier in northern waters (June), than in central (July) and southern waters (August) of Baja California (SCS, 2004). Red rock lobster is fished commercially in Mexico from the Mexico-USA border, south to Margarita Island. The main portion of the fishery, however, is in central Baja California between Cedros Island and Punta Abreojos. Annual catches fluctuated around 1400 tonnes in the mid-late 1990s and rose to highs of 1828 and 1653 in 2000 and 2001 respectively (SCS, 2004). Red rock lobster are caught with rectangular traps covered with galvanized, plastic-sheathed wire mesh. The traps have panels which allow undersize lobsters to escape. Vessels are typically 5-7 metre skiffs with outboard motors. Fishermen hold the lobsters alive in floating wooden containers (recibas) and transport them to shore for processing and shipping. Most of the catch is sold live but some are cooked and frozen for storage. Over 70% of the catch is exported, with most sold live to Asian markets in Hong Kong and Taiwan and the remainder sold on the domestic Mexican market (Ramade and Garcia, 2005). Potential markets for cooked frozen lobster from Mexico exist in Italy, Spain and France (Ramade and Garcia, 2005). The fishery is managed using a community-based system that involves cooperative management between the fishers and the government. Cooperatives are granted exclusive fishing rights for lobster within a specified zone, with fishing concessions lasting 20 years. The cooperatives rigorously control fishing effort and enforcement against poachers within their respective zones. Each employs a biologist or technician to assist with data collection and act as a liaison between the cooperatives and the regional federation of cooperatives and government agencies such as the National Commission on Aquaculture and Fisheries (Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca, CONAPESCA). Fishery assessment and certification There are 26 fishing cooperatives whose members catch red rock lobster in Baja California but only 10 cooperatives operate in the central region and nine of these central region cooperatives are in the FEDECOOP, the client for this assessment. The group of nine cooperatives involved with the Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera Baja California F.C.L (Baja California Regional Federation of the Fishing Cooperative Societies) (FEDECOOP) acted as a client for the assessment of the fishery against the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The FEDECOOP pursued MSC certification in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) with additional local logistical support provided by Communidad y Biodiversidad (CoBi).

130

Pre-assessment of the fishery and another Mexican fishery were conducted in 2001. Full assessment of the Mexican Baja California Red Rock Lobster Fishery began in earnest in late 2002 by California-based Scientific Certification Systems (SCS). The fishery was certified as meeting the standard set by the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing in April 2004. Led by Dr. Chet Chaffee from SCS, the independent assessment team of experts consisted of: Dr. Bruce Phillips, Curtin University, Western Australia; Dr. Daniel Lluch Belda, Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas del IPN; and Dr. Arturo

Muhlia, Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas Noroeste, Sociedad Civil. The expert team elaborated the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing into 41 measurable indicators on which to base an objective determination of the fishery’s performance. At the end of the assessment process the overall score for the fishery met MSC requirements for a conditional pass. The assessment revealed a number of strengths and some weaknesses in the fishery and two certification conditions were raised:

o Develop and incorporate a strategy for understanding the importance of ecosystem impacts from fishing, and how potential impacts will be identified, monitored and managed.

o Develop a research plan to support efforts to develop appropriate harvest strategies. Post certification audit outcomes Once certified, the fishery must undergo at least one surveillance audit a year to ensure that the fishery continues to meet the standard set by the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, and that the client organisation is meeting its obligations in relation to the certification conditions. In July 2005 the results of the first annual surveillance audit of the fishery was published (SCS, 2005). SCS and its expert team concluded that the fishery continued to the meet the standard set by the Principles and Criteria and that the client organisation was making sufficient progress against the certification conditions. Analysis of environmental gains Our preliminary examination of the certification conditions for this fishery revealed no line of enquiry that would lend itself to quantitative analysis as they related mainly to the development of research or management strategies under Principle 3. At some time in the future, the strategies themselves should be incorporated into management system and the results and/or outcomes of relevant research should lead to greater understanding of ecosystem interactions and harvest strategy approaches in the lobster fishery. In turn, and further into the future, results from the research may lead to changes in the management system itself. However, it is far too early to predict what, if anything, might happen. Therefore, for the purposes of our study we concentrated on reporting any institutional or research gains from progress on meeting the conditions and finding any anecdotal information on benefits that might be linked to the MSC certification programme. We were provided with a report written in November 2005 on behalf of FEDECOOP which sought to establish baseline information about the market for the Baja California lobster to help assess changes in market conditions through time, as a result of the certification of the

131

fishery in April of 2004 (Ramade and Garcia, 2005). The authors also examined whether any other general benefits have accrued to the client organisation or fishermen in general from the MSC certification. We also spoke with Meredith Lopuch, leader of WWF’s Community Fisheries Program, based in California, USA who provided valuable insights into real and potential benefits in this fishery following certification under the MSC programme. Strategy for understanding ecological impacts Condition 1, relating to performance against Principle 3 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SCS Indicator 1.2):

o A specific strategy must be developed and incorporated into the management system that provides for understanding the importance of ecosystem impacts from fishing, and details how potential impacts will be identified, monitored and managed, in addition to what timeframes (yearly, every 5 years, etc.) will be used to review this information.

Source: SCS, 2004 Type of gain: Institutional SCS reported after the first annual surveillance audit that the client organisation FEDECOOP had provided evidence to its expert team that “it is fully engaged in a cooperative research project between various Mexican scientists and scientists in the United States to examine ecological impacts and risks in the fishery. Mario Ramade arranged for SCS to talk with two of the lead investigators in Mexico (Dr. Salvador Lluch) and the US (Dr. Fiorenza Micheli of Stanford University). The two scientists provided SCS with a copy of the grant application and research plan showing how they plan to tackle issues associated with potential ecological impacts from fishing. The research program will use interviews, workshops, and direct field experiments to examine potential impacts from lobster fishing.” (SCS, 2005). This Mexico-USA collaborative research project will involve a multidisciplinary team of researchers including biologists, economists and sociologists. SCS concluded that the progress the client has made against this condition exceeds the requirements the certification body set for the first year of certification (SCS, 2005). On the basis of SCS’s report and conclusions, supported by stakeholder comments (M. Lopuch31, pers comm.) we have in turn concluded that the attraction of both a team of multi-national and multi-disciplinary researchers and grant funding to help the client meet one of its certification conditions was directly stimulated by MSC certification. Until research is demonstrated to have commenced, we are labelling the gain institutional rather than research.

Developing appropriate harvest strategies

Condition 2, relating to performance against Principle 3 of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (SCS Indicator 1.4.1):

o A plan for conducting research to support efforts to develop appropriate harvest strategies must be specified, including timeframes for review and organizations or persons responsible for implementing the plan (SCS, 2004).

Source: SCS, 2004 Type of gain: Institutional In its surveillance audit, SCS reported that changes in the structure and functioning of the management system meant that FEDECOOP had found an appropriate alternative to meeting this condition. The FEDECOOP had proposed working together with government officials to

31 Director, Community Fisheries Program, WWF USA

132

formalize an approach to the research needed each year to support the harvest strategy. SCS also reported that a newly formed committee involving executives, managers, and biologists from all the cooperatives in the Federation, as well as members of the federal institute for fisheries management (INP) and state delegates of fisheries meets to discuss specific management objectives and regulations for the fishery. This new committee seems to be providing greater access to fishermen and stakeholders during the management process (SCS, 2005). Again, SCS reported that progress the client has made exceeds the requirements the certification body set for the first year of certification (SCS, 2005). We concluded that the changes reported by SCS constituted an institutional gain that was stimulated by the MSC certification. Other benefits resulting from certification In their publication entitled “A report on market characteristics of the Baja California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus)”, commissioned by the Sustainable Fisheries Fund as part of a joint WWF/COBI/MSC project, Mario Ramade and Rubén García have collated baseline production and market information from the fishery. The authors also examined whether the fishery, the client organisation or the fishing communities have realised any benefits in the 12 months following successful certification to the MSC standard. In relation to potential benefits Ramade and Garcia focussed on the following key questions:

1. Have any of the cooperatives and/or FEDECOOP received funding for projects from foundations, government, etc as a result of being MSC certified?

2. If so what where the projects and associated funding and how will these projects/improvements assist the fishery/communities/FEDECOOP in the years to come?

3. Has the fishery received any awards or other recognition as a result of certification?

4. What other benefits have the cooperatives/FEDECOOP seen as a result of MSC certification?

In answering these questions, Ramade and Garcia observe that it is difficult to separate specific funding, grants and other contributions received either as a direct result of the fishery certification or as a result of action taken by the client organisation or others prior to or during the certification period. The authors do, however, state emphatically that they believe that since certification in April 2004 the Mexican federal and state governments and various institutions (e.g., the Federal Electricity Commission, the Indigenous Population National Commission and the State Government of Baja California Sur) have been paying more attention to the fishery, the area and the communities, and that there is a link between MSC certification and this attention. They suggest that a 20 year old demand by the communities to bring electricity to nine fishing communities (and nearly 10,000 inhabitants) has been met with a combined contribution by the institutions of some $20 million dollars. The authors do note that though access to public funds for this purpose is available to all communities, they believe that the international acknowledgement through the certification simplified and aided the process.

133

This accomplishment is potentially highly significant for the well-being of the people in the communities that now have reliable, 24 hour coverage, long term source of energy. For thirty years, the lobster fishing communities provided their own electricity at their own cost, but now being connected to the national grid, will lead to longer term social and financial benefits for each community. An immediate impact will be a 50% reduction in electricity costs for the lobster fishermen (Ramade and Garcia, 2005). Other initiatives that are underway, and made possible by funding and grants, include the modernisation of processing plants to bring them up to the health and quality standards required to export products to the European Union; as well as upgrading of outboard motors to more fuel efficient four-stroke motors. This should help open up export markets to Europe and reduce fuel costs for lobster fishermen. In concluding that it is still too early in the certification to realise tangible market or economic benefits from the sale of certified lobster products, the authors suggest that other benefits realised by the fishery can be divided into two groups: 1) image and reputation; and 2) political and financial. The fishery’s enhanced image and reputation, it is suggested, has resulted in political empowerment, greater security of resource access and access to financial resources for research. Political and financial benefits to communities have resulted in demands for electricity supplies, surfacing of access roads and federal support for infrastructure and modernisation projects either being, or beginning to be, fulfilled (Ramade and Garcia, 2005). Conclusions From an environmental benefits perspective, the Mexican Baja California Red Rock Lobster Fishery is yet to demonstrate any operational gains or results ‘on the water’. However, the potential exists in the longer term with the fulfilment of the research related conditions. The main benefits emerging from this fishery are likely to be economic and social benefits and future studies should perhaps focus their attention on those areas, particularly pursuing lines of enquiry suggested by the outcomes reported by Ramade and Garcia. References Holthuis, L.B. (1991) FAO species catalogue.

Vol. 13. Marine lobsters of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of species of interest to fisheries known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. No. 125, Vol. 13. Rome, FAO. 292 pp.

Ramade, M. and R. García (2005) A report on

market characteristics of the Baja California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus). Fisheries and Commercialization Departments, Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera

Baja California, F.C.L. (FEDECOOP) [Regional Federation of Cooperative Societies of Baja California’s Fishing Industry]. 17pp.

SCS (2004) An MSC assessment of the red

rock lobster fishery, Baja California, Mexico. SCS, California. 206pp.

SCS (2005) Baja California, Mexico red (spiny)

lobster. Annual surveillance report as required under the Marine Stewardship Council program, 2005. SCS, California. 12pp.

134