Scoping Document for a Tuna Fisheries Improvement Project in the Indian Ocean

Transcription

1 Scoping Document for a Tuna Fisheries Improvement Project in the Indian Ocean Report to the FIP Participants FINAL REPORT August 2016 POSEIDON AQUATIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LTD MAIN OFFICE, WINDRUSH, WARBORNE LANE, PORTMORE, LYMINGTON, HAMPSHIRE SO41 5RJ UNITED KINGDOM TELEPHONE: CONTACT: tim@consult-poseidon.com GBR

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT BACKGROUND PURPOSE The MSC Standard for Responsible Fisheries Social and ethical issues in fisheries Fisheries Improvement Projects DESIGN PROCESS OVERALL SCOPE PRE-ASSESSMENT RESULTS SCORING UoC A: Free-school purse seine fishery UoC B: FAD-dependent purse seine fishery CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Improved Performance Goal (IPG) Development Harmonization with other relevant fisheries assessments and FIPs DRAFT ACTION PLAN OVERALL SCOPE OF THIS FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CRITICAL IMPROVED PERFORMANCE GOALS Target stock rebuilding (1.1.2) Target species harvest strategy (1.2.1) Harvest Control Rules (1.2.2) Information and monitoring (1.2.3) Secondary species outcome (2.2.1) Secondary species management (2.2.2) Ecosystem management (2.5.2) NON-CRITICAL IMPROVED PERFORMANCE GOALS Stock status (1.1.1) Primary species Information (2.1.3) Secondary species information (2.2.3) ETP species information (2.3.3) Habitat outcome (2.4.1) Habitat management (2.4.2) Habitat information (2.4.3) Ecosystem outcome (2.5.1) Ecosystem information (2.5.3) Legal & customary framework (3.1.1) Compliance and enforcement (3.2.3) NEXT STEPS OVERVIEW ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT CURRENT TIMELINE POSEIDON Aquatic Resource Management Ltd

3 Appendices APPENDIX A: REFERENCES APPENDIX B: PRE-ASSESSMENT SCORING TABLES Tables and Figures Figures FIGURE 1: FIP PLANNING PROCESS... 5 FIGURE 2: INDIAN OCEAN UNDER IOTC JURISDICTION... 6 FIGURE 3: CURRENT FIP PARTNERSHIP AND STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS... 6 Tables TABLE 1: LIST OF MSC PRE-ASSESSMENT AND FULL ASSESSMENT INITIATIVES TO DATE... 1 TABLE 2: IDENTIFICATION OF IMPROVED PERFORMANCE GOALS FROM THE PRE-ASSESSMENT TABLE 3: HARMONISATION WITH OTHER MSC PRE-ASSESSMENT INITIATIVES... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. TABLE 4: FIP SCOPING SUMMARY TABLE 5: SIMPLIFIED SCORING SHEET: UOC A.1 FREE-SCHOOL PURSE SEINE FISHERY (SKIPJACK TUNA) TABLE 6: SIMPLIFIED SCORING SHEET: UOC A.2 FREE-SCHOOL PURSE SEINE FISHERY (YELLOWFIN TUNA) TABLE 7: SIMPLIFIED SCORING SHEET: UOC A.3 FREE-SCHOOL PURSE SEINE FISHERY (BIGEYE TUNA) TABLE 8: SIMPLIFIED SCORING SHEET: UOC B.1 FAD-DEPENDENT PURSE SEINE FISHERY (SKIPJACK TUNA) TABLE 9: SIMPLIFIED SCORING SHEET: UOC B.2 FAD-DEPENDENT PURSE SEINE FISHERY (YELLOWFIN TUNA) TABLE 10: SIMPLIFIED SCORING SHEET: UOC B.3 FAD-DEPENDENT PURSE SEINE FISHERY (BIGEYE TUNA) Disclaimer and Report Information This report has been prepared with the financial support of Thai Union Europe (TUE). The views expressed in this study are purely those of the authors & do not necessarily reflect the views of TUE, nor in any way anticipates their future policy in this area. The content of this report may not be reproduced, or even part thereof, without explicit reference to the source. Huntington, T. (2016). Scoping Document for a Tuna Fisheries Improvement Plan in the Western Indian Ocean. Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd, Windrush, Warborne Lane, Portmore, Lymington, Hampshire SO41 5RJ, UK Tel: Fax: tim@consult-poseidon.com URL: Version: Final FIP Scoping Report Report ref: 1264/R/01/B Date issued: 11 August 2016 POSEIDON Aquatic Resource Management Ltd

4 Acronyms used ANABAC... Asociación Nacional de Armadores de Buques Atuneros Congeladores B... Biomass BIOT... British Indian Ocean Territory BMT... Benchmarking and Tracking Tool CAS... Consequence Spatial Analysis Cat.... Category CBD... Convention on Biological Diversity CCS... Catch Certificate Scheme CEPESCA... Confederación Española de Pesca CFP... Common Fisheries Policy cm... centimetre CMM... Conservation and Management Measures CNCP... Cooperating non-contracting Parties (of IOTC) COI... Commission de l Océan Indien COMESA... Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa CPC... Contracting Party and Cooperating Non-Contracting Party CPUE... Catch per Unit Effort DG MARE... Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries DWFN... Distant Water Fishing Nation EAF... ecosystem approach to fisheries EC... European Commission EEZ... Exclusive Economic Zone ETP... Endangered, Threatened and Protected EU... European Union EUR... Euro F... Fishing mortality FAD... Fish Aggregating Device FAO... Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FIP... Fishery Improvement Project F MSY... Fishing mortality rate that would give maximum sustainable yield FPA... Fisheries Partnership Agreement GEF... Global Environment Fund GT... Gross Tonnes IFREMER... Institut Français de Recherche pour l Exploitation de la Mer IOC... Indian Ocean Commission IOTC... Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IOTTP... Indian Ocean Tuna Tagging Programme IRD... Institut de Recherche pour le Développement ISSF... International Seafood Sustainability Foundation IUU... Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (fishing) LME... Large Marine Ecosystem m... metre(s) MCS... Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MPA... Marine Protected Area MSC... Marine Stewardship Council MSY... Maximum Sustainable Yield mt... Metric tonnes N... No (in relevant MSC scoring tables) N/A... not applicable or not available Na (or na)... not applicable POSEIDON Aquatic Resource Management Ltd

5 NGO... non-governmental organisation nm... nautical mile OPAGAC... Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros Congeladores PCM... Post-capture mortality PSA... Productivity Susceptibility Analysis RBF... Risk-Based Framework RFMO... Regional Fisheries Management Organisation RTTP-IO... Regional Tuna Tagging Project Indian Ocean SB... Spawning Biomass SFA... Seychelles Fisheries Authority SICA... Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis SFPA... Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement SWIO... Southwest Indian Ocean SWIOFC... Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission SWIOFP... South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project t... tonne(s) UNCLOS... United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UoA... Unit of Assessment UoC... Unit of Certification URT... United Republic of Tanzania USD... United States dollar VMS... Vessel Monitoring System WIO... Western Indian Ocean WIO-LaB... Western Indian Ocean Land Based Impacts on the Marine Environment (Project) WIOMSA... Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association WPEB... Working Party on Ecosystem and Bycatch Y... yes (in relevant MSC scoring tables) POSEIDON Aquatic Resource Management Ltd

6 1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT 1.1 BACKGROUND This document provides the scope for a prospective Fisheries Improvement Project (FIP) for the majority of European Union (EU), Seychelles and Mauritius-flagged purse seine vessels fishing for pelagic tunas in the Indian Ocean. This initiative is largely the result of a series of pre-assessments (see table below) and one failed full assessment, for certification of these yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack tuna-directed purse seine fisheries against the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard for responsible fisheries. In particular, this FIP scoping document was initially based upon a preassessment conducted for the twelve vessel strong Seychelles-flagged fleet undertaken in late 2015 (see Section 2 for more details), but also recognises that further harmonization with other FIPs in the Indian Ocean will be essential. This harmonisation process will be conducted in association with WWF. Table 1: List of MSC pre-assessment and full assessment initiatives to date Fishery Author / Date Initiative Current status Maldives pole and line fishery (SKJ) Maldives handline fishery (YFT) OPAGAC / AGAC purse seine fishery (YFT, BET, SKJ) OPAGAC global purse seine fisheries (YFT, BET, SKJ) Echebastar purse seine fishery (YFT, BET, SKJ) ISSF evaluation relative to MSC criteria Princes preassessment (YFT, BET, SKJ) Seychelles-flagged purse seine fishery Moody Intertek (2012) Moody Intertek (2014) MRAG (2014) WWF / OPAGAC (2015) Acoura (2015) Medley & Powers (2015) MRAG (2016) Poseidon (2016) MSC full assessment (CR 1.2) MSC expedited assessment (CR 1.3) MSC pre-assessment (CR v1.3) MSC pre-assessment (FCR v2.0) MSC full assessment (CR 1.3) Scoring across P1 & P3 (FCR v2.0) MSC pre-assessment (FCR v2) MSC pre-assessment (FCR v2.0) Certified in 2012 Certified in 2014 (currently suspended) Pre-assessment completed in Update of MRAG (2014). Preassessment completed in FIP under design in Failed following successful objection in Version 3 (March 2015). Pre-assessment completed in Specific FIP under design but will be amalgamated with this FIP. Pre-assessment completed. This FIP (expanded to include other purse seine fleets in the Indian Ocean). This FIP will include the following hip, comprising coastal states, processors and producers duly represented either by individual vessel companies and their associations: Thai Union Europe Princes OPAGAC ANABAC Orthongel FEDERPESCA Government of the Seychelles Government of Mauritius Government of Madagascar (tbc) This FIP scoping document has been prepared by Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd a UK based fisheries consultancy firm. The next stage is the development, in consultation with all Page 1

7 stakeholders, of a detailed Action Plan to review and fine tune the draft action plan outlined in this report in order to meet the objectives of this FIP. Description of the fishery: the fishing fleet to be covered by this FIP currently consist of around 40 industrial purse seine fishing vessels, varying in length from around 70 m to 106 m. These vessels store their catch in one of two ways: 1. Dry storage: vessels freezing the fish down upon catch and then placing them in dry storage at -40 C and thus can go for further value addition. 2. Brine storage: vessels that have brine wells that store fish at around -20 C and are thus only really suitable for canning. The implications of these two alternate catch storage approaches will need to be investigated over the course of the FIP, in that it is possible that the dry storage vessels target larger yellowfin tuna and thus have a reduced dependency upon FADs. Fishing gear: the purse seine used by the fleet vary according to the size of the vessel, but are generally metres (m) deep and 1,500 1,800 m in length. The nylon mesh size is around 50 mm. The net lengths are divided into separate panels, which can be replaced when the nets are damaged. The first sets of the day usually commence at around 3 or 4 am and is usually completed at around 10 am. Each set lasts around 1 hour for unsuccessful sets and 2 to 2.5 hours on large, successful hauls. Depending on opportunities, there may be up to 3 sets in a day, but a single set is more normal. Trip lengths may last from 30 to 40 days. Vessels fish all the year round, with 2-3 weeks every two years for servicing and refitting. A purse seiner circles the school with a deep curtain of netting, then the bottom of the net is pursed (closed) underneath the fish school by hauling a wire running from the vessel through rings along the bottom of the net and then back to the vessel, preventing the fish from "sounding", or swimming down to escape the net. Searching for the fish schools and assessing their size and direction of movement is an important part of the fishing operation. Sophisticated electronics, such as echo sounders, sonar, and track plotters, may be used to search for and track schools, assessing their size and movement and keeping in touch with the school while it is surrounded with the seine net. Crows nests may be built on the masts for further visual support. Large vessels can have observation towers and helicopter landing decks. Helicopters and spotter planes and even drones may be used for detecting fish schools. A very heavy boom, which carries the power block, is fitted at the mast. On the deck are three drum purse seine winches and a power block, with other specific winches to handle the heavy boom and net. Vessels are usually equipped with a skiff. Fishing for tuna schools may occur by setting the purse seine around schools, or on natural objects referred to as log sets. These techniques are opportunistic. The majority of vessels use Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) to some extent, but this practice varies from vessel to vessel. The Seychelles-flagged purse seine operation is, like the Spanish flagged fleet, essentially a FAD operation, although free schools are also targeted over Nov January when YFT form spawning aggregations. Vessels are now limited to deploying instrumented FADs at any one time ( active FADs ), but may carry many more. The French fleet is also moving towards increased FAD use for the above reasons. FADs have evolved over the last six to seven years to reduce the potential for turtle and shark entanglement through the use of sausage nets rather than hung net panels. ISSF is now advocating the greater use of non-entangling materials, rather than nets. They have also reduced the use of bamboo (due to concerns of over-harvesting on the Seychelles) and now use metal pipes. This has resulted in an increased risk of ghost fishing from abandoned and lost FADs, as well as impacts on coral reefs if they ground. Almost all FADs currently used in this sea area are of this type. 1 Originally 550 in Resolution 15/08, but has been revised to no more than 425 active instrumented buoys and 850 acquired annually instrumented buoys per purse seine vessel in Resolution 16/01. Page 2

8 Fish is stowed in wells, each holding approximately 50 tonnes, but the number of wells and their capacity will vary according to vessel size. Fish are generally frozen in a brine mix once in the wells and offloaded to carriers or directly into marketing or processing facilities when in port. Two Seychelles seiners have small blast freezer for dry freezing at -40. There are no permissible high seas transfers (transhipments). Fishing areas: the area of the fishery is seasonal the Seychelles is in the heart of the fishery so boats can fish in within 1-2 days sailing from Victoria. They tend to fish to the south in the Mozambique Channel over March May (often landing in Diego Suarez) then north off Somalia over July Nov). With the closure of the BIOT region to fishing vessels do not go east, although sometimes go as far as Indonesia. The vessels tend to steam to prospective FADs at night (at around 16 knots) and fish only during the day. The various purse seine fleets fish both in the high seas, as well as the EEZs of coastal states. Catches in different zones may vary significantly between years for any specific month given the migration patterns of tuna, but typically around 50 % of total catches are made in high seas areas, 35 % in the EEZ of Seychelles, with all other fishing zones in the region from Kenya southwards representing around 1-5 % of total catches. 1.2 PURPOSE A key development over the past two decades has been the emergence of market-driven mechanisms to put pressure on fisheries to improve their environmental sustainability. The main such mechanism is the third-party certification of fisheries against a pre-established standard. In terms of uptake, by far the most successful of these is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard for responsible fisheries The MSC Standard for Responsible Fisheries Under the MSC program, fisheries are certified and entitled to display the blue ecolabel if they meet the MSC Standard: the principles and criteria for sustainable fishing. The Standard comprises three core principles: 1. Health of fish stocks 2. Impact on ecosystems 3. Effective fisheries management. The actions that fisheries take to demonstrate they meet these three principles vary considerably and take into account the unique circumstances of each fishery. Certification to the MSC Standard is a multi-step process conducted by independent certification bodies. The process usually begins with a pre-assessment to determine whether a fishery is ready for full assessment against the Standard and provides guidance about the issues that may need improvement in order to meet the MSC performance requirements. Briefly, the assessment process involves scoring 31 PIs (under FCR v2) using narrative guides to the characteristics that will achieve particular scores (called scoring guideposts, SGs for short). In order to obtain MSC certification, the fishery needs to achieve a score of 60 or more for each PI. If a fishery achieves a score of less than 60 on any PI, certification will not be awarded. Additionally, the fishery must have an aggregate score of 80 or higher for each of MSC s three principles in order to be certified. In some cases, and for only five status-related (i.e. outcome-related) PIs, when sufficient quantitative data are not available to score a given PI using the usual set of SGs, the MSC Risk-Based Framework might be used. This is a set of assessment methods that enable certifiers to assess the risks a fishery poses to the sustainability (or status) of target, retained and bycatch species, as well as habitats and ecosystems. Detailed procedures for the applicability and use of the Risk-Based Framework are in the MSC certification requirements. Page 3

9 1.2.2 Social and ethical issues in fisheries MSC does not currently have any principles or criteria relating to social or ethical issues in fisheries. Following MSC Board approval in June 2016, the MSC intends to work with, and learn from current social standards and initiatives, as well as their fishery and supply chain contacts, to understand their needs and expectations. The MSC anticipates introducing any agreed new risk-based requirements in three phases as follows: 1. The initial phase is expected to require a self-declaration by MSC certified fisheries that they are free from unacceptable labour practices and are able to supply evidence to support this claim. The MSC Board has asked for this requirement to be implemented by the end of 2018, following detailed consultation. 2. The MSC will also consult on a set of auditable social requirements or declaration that will be implemented in the Chain of Custody standard in This may include recognition of solutions offered by other standard setting organisations. 3. The final phase will be to consult on a set of auditable social requirements for labour practices in fisheries, including options to recognise solutions offered by other standard setting organisations, which will be implemented in 2020 when planned updates to the MSC Fisheries Standard are released. A terms of reference document for this work will be made public in August 2016, detailing the objectives, development processes and stakeholder involvement opportunities. It is the intention that this FIP will follow progress with this initiative closely and engage with the process at the earliest opportunity. Discussions with MSC (Hannah Norbury, pers. comm., 11 August 2016) indicate that opportunities will exist for fisheries and FIPs to pilot test any extension of the MSC Principles and Criteria to social and ethical issues and this possibility should have included in both initial and recurrent action planning processes Fisheries Improvement Projects If the pre-assessment demonstrates that a fishery is unlikely to achieve the required standard across the three MSC principles, it will need to consider how the necessary improvements will be made to the identified weaknesses. If the improvements to the fisheries management procedures and information base could be made over a relatively short time-frame e.g., five years or less, that would give greater confidence that the fishery is ready for full assessment. One approach to making these improvements is through a formal Fisheries Improvement Project (FIP). A FIP is a well-established process to improve fisheries sustainability over a set time. FIPs are usually: 1. Based on a MSC pre-assessment; 2. Have an agreed Action Plan with measurable indicators and an associated budget; 3. Involve a FIP Partnership with a secretariat, a coordinator and technical facilitators; 4. Have a final goal of MSC certification. FIPs can give better market access as a FIP demonstrates commitment to reach the market-driven MSC standard. They can provide a framework to move a fishery towards sustainability by an agreed time by: Creating hips between fishers, buyers, researchers and government Strengthening fisheries management by addressing key gaps identified by a pre-assessment Identifying clear targets and activities A FIP normally follows a pre-assessment which informs the design and initial benchmarking, and once under implementation, undergoes regular evaluation to track progress to the FIP s ultimate goal, be this MSC certification or an alternative agreed end point (see figure below). Page 4

10 1.3 DESIGN PROCESS The development of a FIP is very much a stakeholder-driven process. As suggested by the figure below, the starting point in the pre-assessment report which will have identified which Performance Indicators (PIs) have scored less than 80, the unconditional pass level for MSC. Therefore, all those PIs that scored <60 (fail) or (conditional pass) need to be assessed to determine the key weaknesses, how they can be addressed and by who. 1. Undertake MSC Pre-Assessment 2. Scoping to identify key FIP objectives 3. Identify FIP leads, & stakeholders 4. Agree Action Planning process 5. Detailed FIP Planning Workshop and final Action Plan 6. Implement FIP and Action Plan 7. Regular evaluation against AP targets / milestones 8. Full assessment against MSC Standard Figure 1: FIP Planning Process 1.4 OVERALL SCOPE The overall scope of this FIP is as follows: Target species: this FIP will consider the following three pelagic tuna species as the parget species: 1. Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) 2. Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) 3. Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) Fishing methods: this FIP will include the use of purse seines by large (e.g. >60 m) specialist purse seine vessels. Sets by these vessels can be made in two different ways, on: 1. Free-schools: vessels seek, other with the assistance of helicopters, large schools of tuna which are then fished by a single vessel, usually during daylight. 2. Associated sets: vessels that utilise the natural aggregation of tuna around floating objects, such as natural logs (and other large debris), large marine animals such as whale sharks, and around purpose-built drifting FADs 2. 2 It should be noted that, for the purpose of this FIP, it is proposed that the different forms of associated sets are treated as the same. Except for the area of the Mozambique Channel where purse seiners operate in March-May and the proportion of 'natural' objects is high and close to 30-50%, the proportion of FADs (as opposed to other floating objects) is close or larger than 90% in the other areas. IRD does not separate out natural logs and FADs for statistics on catch and bycatch since the school characteristics and species composition is very similar between natural and artificial objects. Page 5

11 Fishing area: the fishing area is the Indian Ocean under the jurisdiction of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission e.g. FAO Statistical Areas 51 and 57. Figure 2: Indian Ocean under IOTC jurisdiction Source: FAO website ( downloaded 25 July 2016). Fishing fleet: the fishing fleet currently numbers around forty vessels fishing for, or on behalf of, the FIP participants. The exact nature of the fleet will be clarified as the FIP hip evolves, and will be assessed in detail during FIP action planning. However, it is recognised that the fishing fleet might change over time if the FIP hip is enlarged or decreased. Key FIP participants: the key FIP participants are currently as follows (subject to change): Figure 3: Current FIP Partnership and stakeholder relationships Page 6

12 2 PRE-ASSESSMENT RESULTS A pre-assessment was undertaken of the Seychelles-flagged purse seine fishery by Poseidon over late The pre-assessment was based upon the recently introduced MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0. Six units of assessment were identified, consisting of two major fishing methods and three oceanic tuna species, these being: UoA A. Purse seine (free-school) B. Purse-seine (FAD) Target stocks Fishing method Fishing fleet Nontarget catch (P2) 1. Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) 2. Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) 3. Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) Purse seine (free school) 1. Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) 2. Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) 3. Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) Purse seine (associated) Seychelles-flagged purse seine fleet operating within the Seychelles Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), high seas areas and EEZs of Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania, Mauritius, Comores, Iles Eparses, and Mayotte. Primary species: None Secondary species (main): Bullet tuna (Auxis rochei) Frigate tuna (Auxis thazard) Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) Rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulata) Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) Secondary species (minor): Common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) Spotted oceanic trigger fish (Canthidermis maculatus) Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis) Primary species: None Secondary species (main): Bullet tuna (Auxis rochei) Frigate tuna (Auxis thazard) Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) Rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulata) Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) Common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) Secondary species (minor): Spotted oceanic trigger fish (Canthidermis maculatus) Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) Kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis) To make the pre-assessment simpler, the six UoAs were aggregated into two main UoAs, one for free-school fishing (UoA A) and the second for FAD-based fishing (UoA B), considering the three tuna species (YFT, BET and SKJ) as target species in each. Both P1 (stock status) and P3 (management) are the same across both free-school and FAD-associated fisheries. The main differences lay in P2 (ecosystems), both in terms of the bycatch and habitat (FAD-associated fisheries are considered to be an enhanced fishery ). The pre-assessment used a combination of primary and secondary data collected in the Seychelles and from published sources. A site visit was conducted by Tim Huntington in November 2015 and a final workshop was attended by Dr Michael Keatinge in April Page 7

13 B: Purse seine (FAD-associated A: Purse seine (free-school) FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SCOPING DOCUMENT Scoring and findings of the pre-assessment The scoring can be summarised as follows: UoA Principle PIs less than 60 Overall outcome A.1 Skipjack tuna A.2 Yellowfin tuna A.3 Bigeye tuna B.1 Skipjack tuna B.2 Yellowfin tuna B.3 Bigeye tuna 1 Stock 2 / 5 Fail 2 Ecosystem 3 / 15 Fail 3 Management 0 / 7 Conditional pass 1 Stock 3 / 5 Fail 2 Ecosystem 3 / 15 Fail 3 Management 0 / 7 Conditional pass 1 Stock 2 / 5 Fail 2 Ecosystem 3 / 15 Fail 3 Management 0 / 7 Conditional pass 1 Stock 2 / 5 Fail 2 Ecosystem 3 / 15 Fail 3 Management 0 / 7 Conditional pass 1 Stock 3 / 5 Fail 2 Ecosystem 3 / 15 Fail 3 Management 0 / 7 Conditional pass 1 Stock 2 / 5 Fail 2 Ecosystem 3 / 15 Fail 3 Management 0 / 7 Conditional pass Fail <60 Pass with condition (60 79) Pass ( 80) It can be seen that all six UoAs fail under both P1 (target species stock status) and P2 (ecosystems), but might achieve a conditional pass under P3 (management). This is explained Principle by Principle in the section overleaf. The scoring tables can be found in Appendix B: Pre-assessment scoring tables. There are six tables as follows: UoA A.1 Free-School Purse Seine Fishery (Skipjack Tuna) UoA A.2 Free-School Purse Seine Fishery (Yellowfin Tuna) UoA A.3 Free-School Purse Seine Fishery (Bigeye Tuna) UoA B.1 FAD-Dependent Purse Seine Fishery (Skipjack Tuna) UoA B.2 FAD-Dependent Purse Seine Fishery (Yellowfin Tuna) UoA B.3 FAD-Dependent Purse Seine Fishery (Bigeye Tuna) Page 8

14 2.1 SCORING UoC A: Free-school purse seine fishery Principle 1 Target Species There are three fundamental issues with all three of these stocks in respect of P1. Firstly, the IOTC does not currently have any Conservation and Management Measures in place, other than the FAD limitation measure (Resolution 15/08, which is yet to be evaluated) to regulate the fisheries for yellowfin tuna. Secondly the IOTC does not currently have a clearly defined Harvest Strategy for these stocks. The latter is defined in MSC-MSCI Vocabulary V 1.0, 1st October as the combination of i) monitoring, ii) stock assessment, iii) harvest control rules and iv) management actions. There are no clearly defined HCR s for this fishery and the assessment team cannot provide objective evidence of well-defined pre-agreed rules or actions used by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) for determining a management action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points. And while IOTC resolution 12/01 does provide an approach, it is none-the-less just an initial step on the path towards fully developing harvest control rules and, ultimately, a harvest strategy. Likewise, while IOTC resolution 13/10 (part 4) does establish the basis of a harvest strategy and specifies that the Scientific Committee shall develop and assess potential harvest control rules (HCRs) to be applied, considering the status of the stocks against reference points, these are currently not in place. The Scientific Committee concluded in their 2015 report that the IOTC does not currently have any Conservation and Management Measures in place, other than the FAD limitation measure (Resolution 15/08, which is yet to be evaluated) to regulate the fisheries for yellowfin tuna. In other words, there are no clearly defined management actions. The 20 th Annual Meeting of IOTC was held in May 2016 and formally adopted harvest control rules for skipjack tuna. It was also agreed that, in order to support the recovery of yellowfin tuna, purse seiners will reduce their catches by 15% percent, FADs will be reduced from 550 to 425 and the number of supply vessels will be also restricted, gillnetters will reduce catches by 10%, longliners also 10% and coastal non-artisanal fleets by 5%. Thirdly and finally, harvest control rules for this stock are not well-defined and there is no specific plan of control if the stock size falls below the trigger point (MSY). While there may be evidence of an intention to end overfishing and rebuild this stock should depletion occur and the scientific committee might be called on to provide such advice, it cannot be argued that there are generally understood harvest rules in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached (thus meeting the SG60). Rather, on balance, it must be argued that well defined and effective harvest control rules are NOT yet in place for this stock. Principle 2 Ecosystem impacts No primary non-target species are present, so this scores 100, 80 and 80 for the P2.1 Outcome, Management and Information PIs respectively. Of the nine non-target species are considered to be secondary species, two (the kawakawa and the blue marlin) have sufficient information to assess their status via the default assessment tree whilst the others are data-deficient and thus need were assessed using the PSA under the RBF. Of the five main secondary species (e.g. >5% of the bycatch 3 ), one (the silky shark) is high risk dues to a combination of its life strategy and high susceptibility to purse seines, even in free school sets. Two other species, the rainbow runner and 3 Normally this is 5% of the total catch volume, but we have used the more precautionary 5% threshold for discarded bycatch Page 9

15 the blue marlin may achieve conditional passes. In the case of the rainbow runner, this species, whilst of medium resilience, is highly susceptible to a number of surface gears in both oceanic and coastal fisheries. The blue marlin is over fished but not currently subject to overfishing, and there is insufficient data to fully account for fisheries mortality. The other two main species, bullet tuna and frigate tuna are both highly productive species and should achieve an MSC pass without major conditions, although fishing mortality data from artisanal fisheries is again a concern. Encounterability of marine turtles in free school sets is low e.g turtles per set and the majority of entrapped turtles are released alive. Sets on whale sharks are banned by IOTC and interactions with dolphins are almost unknown in the Western Indian Ocean. There are a number of IOTC regulations aimed at conserving some shark species, marine turtles and cetaceans. Information on ETP interaction rates and results is reasonable and improving, especially with the recent imposition of 100% observer coverage. There are no habitat-related issues with the free-school fishery. This UoA is part of a number of different fisheries targeting the oceanic tunas and contributes to the removal of a significant biomass of these top predators on a recurrent basis. A widespread decline in the abundance of these top predators, as well as large pelagic sharks has been demonstrated, as has the emergence of several mid-sized, lower-trophic-level species such as crocodile shark and lancet fish. Whilst there has not been a major impact on oceanic productivity detected to date, the continued and increasing pressure of tuna fisheries is of concern and this suggests a greater approach to ecosystem-based management by IOTC is required. There is also a need to progress ecosystem modelling in the Indian Ocean and to assess the trophic implications of both tuna fishing and other factors such as climate change. Principle 3 Fisheries management Under Governance and Policy, the failure of all CPCs to transpose regional-level IOTC Resolutions into national legislation results in a score of under 80 for the PI on the legal and customary framework, while for the PIs on: consultation roles and responsibilities; and long term objectives PIs score over 80. Under the Fishery Specific Management System, the CMMs in effect when viewed in their totality are sufficient to score the PI on fisheries specific objectives as over 80, given that the CMMs provide the rationale (read objectives/goals) for the strategies and actions agreed in the Resolutions (or Recommendations). Decision-making processes are also clearly defined at the regional level for taking decisions related to fishery specific issues (although necessary action is not always taken). Compliance and enforcement is assessed as weak at both regional and national level, impacting on P1 and P2 outcomes and P3 implementation, and therefore has some conditions associated with bringing the PI over 80. Monitoring and evaluation through the defined roles and responsibilities at regional level covers most parts of the evaluation system, but is largely internal in nature UoC B: FAD-dependent purse seine fishery Principle 1 Target Species As for UoC A. Principle 2 Ecosystem impacts No primary non-target species are present, so this scores 100, 80 and 80 for the P2.1 Outcome, Management and Information PIs respectively. Of the nine non-target species are considered to be secondary species, two (the kawakawa and the blue marlin) have sufficient information to assess their status via the default assessment tree whilst the others are data-deficient and thus need were assessed using the PSA under the RBF. Of the six main secondary species (e.g. >5% of the bycatch), one (the silky shark) is high risk due to a combination of its life strategy and high susceptibility to Page 10

16 purse seines. Three other species, the rainbow runner, dolphin fish and blue marlin may achieve conditional passes. In the case of the rainbow runner and dolphinfish, these species, whilst of medium resilience, are highly susceptible to a number of surface gears in both oceanic and coastal fisheries. The blue marlin is overfished but not currently subject to overfishing, and there is insufficient data to fully account for fisheries mortality. The other two main species, bullet tuna and frigate tuna are both highly productive species and should achieve an MSC pass without major conditions, although fishing mortality data from artisanal fisheries is again a concern. Encounterability of marine turtles in FAD-associated sets is low e.g turtles per set and the majority of entrapped turtles are released alive. Sets on whale sharks are banned by IOTC and interactions with dolphins are almost unknown in the Western Indian Ocean. There are a number of IOTC regulations aimed at conserving some shark species, marine turtles and cetaceans. Information on ETP interaction rates and results is reasonable and improving, especially with the recent imposition of 100% observer coverage. Whilst there are no habitat-related issues directly associated with this FAD-dependent fishery, there is increasing concern over the beaching of abandoned, lost and discarded FADs on coral reefs, esp. around the Seychelles. Whilst there is some regional IOTC measures (e.g. FAD limits) and fleet measures (e.g. tracking and recovery of FADs), there is still a significant loss rate with no strategy to address this. In addition, there is limited information on the spatial extent of beaching and on the timing & location of FAD beaching. This UoA is part of a number of different fisheries targeting the oceanic tunas and contributes to the removal of a significant biomass of these top predators on a recurrent basis. A widespread decline in the abundance of these top predators, as well as large pelagic sharks has been demonstrated, as has the emergence of several mid-sized, lower-trophic-level species such as crocodile shark and lancet fish. Whilst there has not been a major impact on oceanic productivity detected to date, the continued and increasing pressure of tuna fisheries is of concern and this suggests a greater approach to ecosystem-based management by IOTC is required. There is also a need to progress ecosystem modelling in the Indian Ocean and to assess the trophic implications of both tuna fishing and other factors such as climate change. With this fishery, whilst there is no strong evidence of recruitment over-fishing linked to FAD use, the ecosystem impact of the extensive and increasing use of FADs is still largely unknown and it cannot be stated with any certainty that it is highly likely that UoA will not disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. Principle 3 Fisheries management As for UoC A. Page 11

17 Critical Noncritical FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SCOPING DOCUMENT 2.2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Improved Performance Goal (IPG) Development The FIP will use the various pre-assessment scoring information to identify where the fisheries will need to demonstrate improved performance in order to meet the MSC Standard for Responsible Fisheries. These deficiencies are used to formulate a set of Improved Performance Goals (IPGs). There are two classes of IPGs as follows: Critical IPGs: For those PIs that scored less than 60 in the pre-assessment (e.g., a fail) Non-critical IPGs: For those PIs that scored between 60 and 79 in the pre-assessment (e.g., a possible conditional pass) Table 2: Identification of Improved Performance Goals from the pre-assessment Performance Indicator (PI) UoC A Free-school UoC Associated YFT BET SKJ YFT BET SKJ IPG allocation Stock status Stock rebuilding < < Harvest strategy <60 <60 <60 <60 <60 < HCRs <60 <60 <60 <60 <60 < Information and monitoring < < Assessment of stock status species outcome species management species Information species outcome <60 <60 <60 <60 <60 < species management <60 <60 <60 <60 <60 < species information ETP species outcome ETP species management ETP species information Habitat outcome Habitat management Habitat information Ecosystem outcome Ecosystem management <60 <60 <60 <60 <60 < Ecosystem information Legal & customary framework Consultation, roles & responsibilities >80 >80 >80 >80 >80 > Long-term objectives >80 >80 >80 >80 >80 > Fishery-specific objective >80 >80 >80 >80 >80 > Decision-making processes >80 >80 >80 >80 >80 > Compliance & enforcement Management performance >80 >80 >80 >80 >80 >80 Page 12

18 The table on the previous page summarises the scoring for the different gear / species combinations and identifies whether the PI needs to be developed into either a critical or non-critical IPG. Where the score is above 80 for all gear / species combinations, no IPG is required and that PI is not included in the FIP. It should be noted that some of the IPGs (e.g., 1.2.1) are relevant for all gear / species combinations, whilst others (e.g., 1.2.1) may only be relevant for one species (in this case YFT). Others (e.g., 2.4.x) are relevant for one gear type (e.g., FAD-associated fishing) only. The purpose of the FIP is to improve the performance of individual PIs (and their constituent Scoring Issues (SI)) over time to the point at which they will consistently score 80 or above. It is important to remember that a pass can only be achieved at the Principle level, as it is the weighted average across the Principle that is required. Therefore, a fishery can fail even if none of the individual PIs scored <60. The more IPG s the FIP addresses, the more certainty that an 80 aggregate score for that Principle will be met Harmonization with other relevant fisheries assessments and FIPs It is important to recognise that a considerable amount of work has already been conducted on working towards the MSC certification of tuna fisheries in the Western Indian Ocean. The main initiatives are summarised in the table below. DETAIL REMOVED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY Page 13

19 3 DRAFT ACTION PLAN 3.1 OVERALL SCOPE OF THIS FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Based on the Seychelles-flagged vessel pre-assessment, the overall scope of the FIP in defined below: Table 3: FIP Scoping Summary Fishery name: Tropical tuna purse seine fishery, mainly landing into the Seychelles targeting yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack tuna Start date: 1 January 2017 Fishery location: Western Indian Ocean Fishing method: Purse seine (free school & with FAD & other associated catches) Anticipated end date: 30 th December 2021 Project leaders: Seychelles Fishing Authority (FIP Coordinator) Thai Union Europe & Princes (FIP Facilitators) Other main project : OPAGAC Government of the Seychelles ANABAC Government of Mauritius Orthongel Government of Madagascar FEDERPESCA External Partners Other coastal states Selected processors and retailers Other key stakeholders WWF MSC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) Improvements recommended by: Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd Overview of the Draft Action Plan: Critical Improved Performance Goals 1. Stock rebuilding (1.1.2): For the yellowfin tuna stock, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe. 2. Harvest strategy (1.2.1): There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place. 3. HCRs (1.2.2): There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place. 4. Information & monitoring (1.2.3): Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy. 5. Secondary species outcome (2.2.1): The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. 6. Secondary species management (2.2.2): There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species; and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. 7. Ecosystem management (2.5.2): There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose Page 14

20 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Non-critical Improved Performance Goals 8. Stock status (1.1.1): The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing. 9. Primary species Information (2.1.3): Information on the nature and amount of primary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species. 10. Secondary species information (2.2.3): Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effective-ness of the strategy to manage secondary species. 11. ETP species information (2.3.3): Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species. 12. Habitat outcome (2.4.1): The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. 13. Habitat management (2.4.2): There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. 14. Habitat information (2.4.3): Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. 15. Ecosystem outcome (2.5.1): The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function. 16. Ecosystem information (2.5.3): There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. 17. Legal & customary framework (3.1.1): The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework. 18. Compliance and enforcement (3.2.3): Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery and enforced and complied with. 3.2 CRITICAL IMPROVED PERFORMANCE GOALS The following section examines the critical IPGs (e.g., those that scored <60 in the pre-assessment) and establishes (i) the key Scoring Issues (SIs) to be addressed by the FIP. These are laid out in a simple tabular format the broadly follows the MSC-recommended approach to FIP planning (MSC, 2013). The table is made of the following components: IPG (Improved Performance Goal) title: a summary of the Improved Performance Goal that reflects a pass (e.g., achieved SG 80 or higher) for the overall Performance Indicator UoC (Unit of Certification): In this FIP, we have two main UoCs, (i) free-school fishing and (ii) associated object fishing e.g., FADs, natural logs and other associations. Target species: the target species whose stock, ecosystem impacts or management need to be addressed in reaching the goal. This may be one or more species for each UoC. Scoring Issue: each Performance Indicator is made up of one or more Scoring Issues that might or might not need to be addressed in the Action Plan, depending on their contribution Page 15

21 to the overall PI score. In some cases, even if the overall PI scores less than 60, an individual SI might score >80 and thus not need addressing in the Action Plan. Actions: the actions required to raise the score to 80 or more. These will be combined to form the overall Action Plan during detailed FIP design and planning. These are usually based upon the SG 80 for the SI concerned, but in some cases where there is no SG 80, it will be based upon SG 60 or SG 100 (indicated in parentheses in the table). Timescale / Milestones: the timescale for achieving the different actions. These are normally stated at milestones (e.g., clearly defined outputs or results) that need to be achieved by a certain time point e.g., end of Year 3 (from FIP start). Action lead: denotes the organisation that will take responsibility for the action (or actions) at SI level. Action : denotes the other organisation(s) that will be directly involved in implementing an action (or actions) at SI level. Other stakeholders: denotes other stakeholders with an interest and potential involvement in implementing an action (or actions) at SI level. Page 16

22 3.2.1 Target stock rebuilding (1.1.2) Critical IPG 1 There is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe: by the end of Year 3, there shall be clear evidence that the YFT stock is at a level which maintained high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing (i.e., it is likely that the stock is above the limit reference point of 20% B 0 ); or there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe (the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time) UoC UoC 1: Free-school: UoC 2: Associated: Target species YFT: BET: SKJ: YFT: BET: SKJ: Scoring Issue Actions Timescale / Milestones Action lead Action (a) Rebuilding timeframes (b) Rebuilding evaluation A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the YFT stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time (SG 60). There is evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is likely based on simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe (SG80). End Y1: Robust, comprehensive YFT rebuilding strategy developed. End Y2: IOTC has adopted the above rebuilding strategy. End Y3: Stock rebuilding strategy implemented. End Y3: Fishing mortality F is <F MSY. End Y5: Stock assessment or other incontrovertible evidence shows that stocks are able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. IOTC IOTC SFA FIP industry FIP Country SFA FIP industry FIP Country Other stakeholders Page 17