Mauritanian Small Pelagic FIP. Version 1

Transcription

1 FIP Work Plan Version Prepared by Ltd. Contact: This document is currently a draft. If you have any comments or to register as a stakeholder please , i.pollard@keytraceability.com Page 1 of 17

2 Contents 1. Introduction Background to the Fishery Target species Unit of Assessment and Certification Background to the IFFO Standard Scoring of the fishery against the IFFO RS standard How the scoring works Scoring of the fishery Action Plan for the FIP FIP Objectives FIP Scoping FIP Activities Draft FIP Workplan Lists of Figures and Tables References Page 2 of 17

3 1. Introduction The main purpose of this document is to identify and prioritise the areas in which the fishery needs to improve by using the IFFO RS Standard as a baseline indicator. The goal of a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) is to move the fishery toward performing at a level consistent with certifying schemes. This document presents an action plan for the. This action plan provides the milestones, responsible parties and timelines for the full five years of the FIP. Further to this, this document outlines: The actions the FIP will implement to enable the fishery to improve its score against the IFFO RS standard and to make progress towards the MSC Standard; The people, organisations or stakeholders involved in the project and their responsibilities; The resources required; The timescales and specific milestones that will help to measure progress towards goals 2. Background to the Fishery 2.1 Target species The three retained target species are the obo (Ethmalosa fimbriata), the round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) and the flat sardinella (S. maderensis). 2.2 Unit of Assessment and Certification At the very beginning of the assessment process the Unit of Assessment (UoA) 1 must be decided. The Unit of Assessment defines what is being assessed during the certification process and includes: The target stock(s); The fishing method or gear; The fleets, vessels, individual fishing operators and other eligible fishers pursuing that stock. The proposed UoA for this assessment / FIP is set out in Table 1 below. 1 Unit of Assessment (UoA): Here we are following the MSC definition of a UoA which is as follows: The target stock(s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock, and any fleets, or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators or other eligible fishers that are included in an MSC fishery assessment. In some fisheries, the UoA and UoC may be further defined based on the specific fishing seasons and/or areas that are included. Page 3 of 17

4 Unit of Assessment Target species Target stocks Fleet Fishing methods Obo (Ethmalosa fimbriata),; Round sardinella (Sardinella aurita); Flat sardinella (S. maderensis). Obo Mauritanian waters (assuming that there is a stock unit or management unit confined to Mauritania, at least in the northern part); Round and flat sardinella Regional shared stocks (Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia and partially Morocco for the round sardinella) Artisanal and coastal fleet targeting small pelagics in Mauritania, in zones 1, 2 and 3 Purse seine, pelagic trawl Table 1 - Proposed Units of Assessment for the FIP 2.3 Background to the IFFO Standard The IFFO RS Global Standard and Certification Programme for the Responsible Supply of Fishmeal and Fish Oil (IFFO RS) assess fishmeal and fish oil against three key pillars: sourcing traceability production. Source fisheries are assessed following the part of the standard for fishing. As for the MSC standard, this fisheries part of the standard is based on the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. For this reason, it was decided to use the standard as an objective basis for an analysis of the situation in relation to the three target species in Mauritania. The assessment was carried out against the IFFO RS standard v1.5, using an 11-section assessment template, which awards a high, medium or low compliance level under each section. The version 1.5 was the one in use when the FIP started. It has been replaced recently by v2.0 which is more conservative. This workplan reflects these changes partially but not fully since it was not considered desirable to re-do the initial assessment; the FIP can be brought up to date with v2.0 at the next review stage. Page 4 of 17

5 3. Scoring of the fishery against the IFFO RS standard 3.1 How the scoring works According to the IFFO-RS standard v1.5, fisheries are awarded a level of compliance under each of the eleven sections: high, medium or low. A fishery scoring high compliance under every section will be approved as highly compliant fishery to the IFFO RS standard. A fishery scoring medium compliance under one or more sections will usually be approved to a medium compliance with conditions designed to enhance this fishery to a higher level of compliance. Medium compliance ratings issued to a fishery represent a minor discrepancy between the state of the fishery and the ideal situation described in the requirements that will receive a high compliance rating. A fishery with more than one medium in an individual section should not be re-approved without ratification from the IFFO RS Fisheries Peer Review Committee prior to full approval being granted. A fishery is issued a low compliance rating when the Certification Body s assessment team considers the discrepancy with the requirements required to gain a high compliance rating to be more severe. A fishery with any low compliance scores in any section will not be approved until the reasons for the low compliance have been addressed. A period of up to 3 months to provide this additional evidence will be allowed from the end of the assessment and if after that period no satisfactory evidence is forthcoming the fishery will be rated as low compliance for approval to the IFFO RS Standard. 3.2 Scoring of the fishery The level of compliance of the three species with the IFFO-RS standard is similar with the obo slightly worse. The similarities are mostly due to non-specific gaps but also to some similar specific gaps. In most cases, similar solutions can be found for the three species. Out of the 33 sections scrutinized (11 x 3), none can be scored as highly compliant. Most of the sections are scored medium compliance and 6 are scored low compliance. Therefore, the implementation of a FIP for this fishery is fully justified. The scoring of the fishery is summarised in the next Table (Table 2). The lowest scores are mostly attributed to the obo and, to a lesser extent, to the round sardinella. Most of the gaps result from the discrepancies observed between the intentions expressed in legislation (which are always appropriate and relevant regarding the IFFO-RS and MSC requirements) and their application; this may be a lack of decrees of application or other legislative tools (e.g. arrêtés ; circulaires ), or a lack of compliance with these decrees. There are also some problems with the basic data and research underpinning the management of the stocks; e.g. limited surveys, lack of information on biology and stock definition in some cases. Page 5 of 17

6 Summary of Compliance Levels for the Round (Left) and Flat (Centre) Sardinella and the Obo (Right) Legal and Administrative Basis Fisheries Management Should be Concerned with the Whole Stock Unit The Management Framework and Procedures A1 A2 A1 A1 A2 A2 Stock Assessment Procedures and Management Advice Precautionary Approach Management Measures Implementation Management Actions Should be Scientifically Based A3 A3 A3 Research in Support of Fisheries Conservation and Management Should Exist Best Scientific Evidence Available Should be Taken into Account When Designing Conservation and Management Measures The Precautionary Approach is Applied in the Formulation of Management Plans The Level of Fishing Permitted Should be Set According to Management Advice Given by Research Organisations B1 B1 B1 B2 B2 B2 C1 C1 C1 D1 D1 D1 Where Excess Fishing Capacity Exist, Mechanisms Should be Established to Reduced Capacity D2 D2 D2 Management Measures Should Ensure That Fishing Gear and Fishing Practices do not Have a Significant Impact on Non- D3 D3 D3 Page 6 of 17

7 Target Species and the Physical Environment A Framework for Sanctions of Violation of Laws and Regulations Should Exist A Management System for Fisheries Control and Enforcement Should be Established E1 E1 E1 E2 E2 E2 Key Low Compliance Medium Compliance High Compliance Table 2 - Summary scoring of the fishery against the IFFO-RS standard. For full details see Fréon, 2017 Page 7 of 17

8 4. Action Plan for the FIP 4.1 FIP Objectives MSC certification is likely to be a long-term objective for this fishery. It is therefore recommended that priority should be given initially to improving compliance with the IFFO- RS standard which is less demanding. Improved compliance with the IFFO-RS standard would be an important step in the direction of MSC certification. 4.2 FIP Scoping Based on the above analysis, the following general issues can be identified that the FIP needs to deal with in order to improve compliance of the fishery with the IFFO-RS standard. Part A - Stock-level Management: The two sardinella stocks are shared across the region (Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia; also Morocco to a lesser extent for the round sardinella), while the geographical boundaries of the obo stock are less clear. Although there is assessment of the stocks at regional level via FAO/COPACE, there is no regional-level management, as would be required for high compliance with Part A (particularly A2), as well as with D1. Part B - Data and Science: All the data needed to evaluate stock status are not being collected: improved assessment of biomass is needed (e.g. via acoustic surveys) as well as better fishery-dependent data (catch, discards, size-frequencies) for different fleet segments. Better information is needed to comply with Part B1 and to apply the requirements of Part B2 to management. Part C Precautionary Approach: Management of the fishery needs to take uncertainty into account, particularly where information is lacking, and should set target biomass levels and fishing strategies which take the needs of the wider ecosystem into account. Improved compliance with this part of the standard mainly arises indirectly through actions in other more specific areas (e.g. improved data collection, a stronger stock management framework); specific activities to deal with Part C are therefore not proposed in this workplan, but it will form part of the background thinking for activities under Parts A, B and D. Part D(1+2) - Application of the National Legal and Policy Framework: Although the legal and policy framework is satisfactory, its application on the ground is lacking; in particular in relation to the Sectoral Fishing Strategy ( ) which puts in place a quota system from This is required to comply with Parts D1 and D2. Part D(3) - Information on Discards, Interactions with Endangered Species and the Ecosystem: To comply with Part D3, better information is needed on bycatch and interactions with endangered species (if the pelagic trawlers are included), as well as the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem. Part E - Compliance and Control System: The implementation of the legal framework needs to be supported by an effective monitoring, control and sanctions system, as required for Part E, particularly E2. Page 8 of 17

9 4.3 FIP Activities Based on the issues identified above, the following outline activities are proposed: Part A - Stock-level Management Creation and/or support and development of regional organisation for the management of trans-boundary pelagic fish stocks in the region. This could be the Commission Sous- Régionale des Pêches (although Morocco is not member of this organisation) or another body, for instance under the auspices of ATLAFCO (the Ministerial Conference on Fisheries Cooperation Among African States Bordering the Atlantic, best known as COMHAFAT, Conférence ministérielle sur la coopération halieutique entre les états africains riverains de l Océan Atlantique). Either way, the main role of this commission would be to adopt robust regional-level management for each species, based on the recommendation of the regional scientific community (FAO/COPACE), and to decide how to share quotas, capacity reductions or other measures between the different countries of the region. If formal regional-level management appears likely to be unsuccessful within the FIP timeframe, it would also be possible to work for sardinella specifically under a more ad hoc framework of management coordination between Mauritania and Senegal (accounting for 80-90% of the sardinella catch) with if possible Morocco (accounting for nearly all the remainder). Part B - Data and Science Funding and implementation of improved data collection, particularly in relation to the total and spawning biomass of the different stocks, fish size frequencies and catch per species (including discards) for the different segments of the fishery in the different countries of the region. Part D - Application of the National Legal and Policy Framework (D1+D2) Improved application of the existing national legislation, after regional harmonisation as far as possible. Priority should be given in particular to the implementation of the new sectorial fishing strategy (D3) Support an observer programme or another system of on-board data collection on selected vessels, in order to obtain information about discards and interactions with threatened or endangered species. Evaluation of the likely impact of the fishery on the marine ecosystem in Mauritania, via an ecosystem model (e.g. based on Guénette et al., 2014). Part E - Compliance and control system Support the development of a more effective system of control and surveillance. Help to coordinate activities across different national services working in this area. Page 9 of 17

10 4.4 Draft FIP Workplan Below is the workplan adopted at the second FIP workshop in Nouakchott, 8-9 August It is based on the analysis in Fréon (2017) and the list of issues and outline activities developed from it (as given above; Tables 3-7 below). Table 3. Activities 1 (PIs A1, A2) 1. Support the CSRP to develop a framework and structures for the management of trans-boundary pelagic fish stocks in the region, or at least an arrangement for management coordination for stocks of sardinella and if necessary obo in the sub-region Activity 1.1: Support an appropriate regional body in developing the regional-level management of small pelagic stocks Work with the CSRP, with Morocco as an observer Lobby authorities in all relevant countries to promote the development of relevant structures and procedures in the organisation (e.g. agreement of procedures, terms of reference, organisation, budget etc.) Put forward proposals where relevant to solve issues that arise which may block the progress of the organisation Apply to attend organisation meetings as an observer; put forward observer / stakeholder comments where permitted to support regional management Activity 1.2: Promote bilateral or multilater agreements on management questions where necessary Evaluate with regional scientists (e.g. IMROP and collaborators in other countries, or via FAO/COPACE) the geographical level required for management of each stock. (Sardinella stocks appear to be regional shared stocks with Mauritania and Senegal the key players; obo may be a Mauritania-only stock. Evaluate options for national-level biomass indicators for regional stocks, such that even in the absence of formal regional management (e.g. as an interim measure) Mauritania and the other countries in the region are able to evaluate an appropriate share of the resource for that year. Where the appropriate management level seems to be national, management plans should be developed at national level (see Activity C below) Action Lead Action Participants Timeframe Other Stakeholders Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Economy Regional organisations, other fisheries ministries in the region (observer COMHAFAT) 5 years initially Registered / licensed fishers operating across the region FAO COPACE Page 10 of 17

11 Civil society, socio-professional bodies, NOGs (Morocco sardine FIP) Status High priority PIs directly addressed A2, A1 PIs indirectly addressed A3, C1, D1, D2 Milestones Year 1 Ensure that the regional body has a mandate to obtain a result Year 2 Structure the organisation, put in place the mandate, guaranteeing suitability for the management of the three stocks agreed Year 3 Commission discussing regional management issues Year 4 Commission agreeing regional management solutions (e.g. quotas or other see below) Year 5 Regional management solutions applied at national level Table 4. Activities 2 (PIs B1, B2) 2. Improve the data available for stock assessment Activity 2.1: Defining the sardinella stock Evaluate stock definitions of the sardinella stocks Support additional data collection if required to define suitable stock or management unit boundaries Review the work of external bodies working on related issues and take part in ongoing or proposed projections for data collection, e.g. PRAO, USAID, EU projects Activity 2.2: Improve the acoustic survey frequency / methodology and Activity 2.3: Improve fishery-dependent sampling Evaluate with regional scientists suitability of existing surveys and key gaps (e.g. via FAO/COPACE or in separate workshop) Develop a costed programme for improving geographic coverage of survey campaigns Develop sampling protocols (size-frequency, catch, biological data) which are designed for each species Source financing for the implementation of the survey and sampling programme Page 11 of 17

12 Action Lead Action Participants Timeframe Stakeholders Status PIs directly addressed PIs indirectly addressed Milestones Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 IMROP FAO / COPACE participants 4 years IMROP, COPACE / FAO, other regional scientific bodies (e.g. INRH, CRODT), fishers, Ministry High priority B1, B2 A3, C1, D1, D2 Evaluation of acoustic survey data gaps; Restart coordinated work on acoustic surveys at the appropriate geographic scale for the three stocks; Improve the protocol for size-frequency sampling Funding proposal to improve surveys, sampling and assessment approaches (modelling in particular) Plan for improved surveys and sampling in place; surveys, sampling and assessments in implementation Plans implemented; improved stock assessment based on scientific data starting to be available Table 5. Activities 3 (PIs D1, D2, E1, A3) 3. Improved management and application of existing legislation, or if necessary adaptation to new requirements, taking into account the precautionary approach Activity 3.1: Management plan for the sardinella fishery In consultation with FAO/COPACE and/or regional scientific bodies, assess status of both stocks in relation to current regional objectives (F 0.1 ) Develop appropriate national-level objectives for the stocks which can support the delivery of regional objectives Evaluate catches and/or fishing capacity in Mauritania in relation to sardinella resources available to the Mauritanian fishery (including piroguiers, the coastal fleet, larger vessels and foreign licensing), whether catch and/or capacity reduction is required and if so where Develop a management plan for the Mauritania sardinella fishery, including appropriate measures for each fleet segment to deliver regional and associated national stock objectives, as well as socio-economic objectives if desired Within this management plan, define a harvest strategy with appropriate reference points (target, limit, trigger and precautionary) for the two species Implement the management plan via suitable decrees of application, arrêtés or other legislative instruments, as well as a suitable administrative framework and resources Page 12 of 17

13 Activity 3.2: Management plan for the obo fishery Work with other stakeholders to support a process for the development of suitable objectives for the obo stock at Mauritanian level With IMROP, assess stock status of obo in Mauritania in relation to objectives Support the Ministry and scientists in evaluating catches and/or capacity in relation to obo resources available to the fishery (including piroguiers, larger vessels and foreign licensing), whether catch and/or capacity reduction is required If capacity / catch reduction is required, work with stakeholders from all fishery segments to assess and agree a management approach consistent with agreed objectives Develop a management plan for the obo fishery consistent with the sectorial strategy, including agreed objectives and measures for each fleet segment to deliver stock objectives, as well as socio-economic objectives and actions if desired Within this management plan, define a harvest strategy with appropriate reference points (target, limit, trigger and precautionary) Implement the management plan via suitable decrees of application and arrêtés or other legislative instruments, as well as a suitable administrative framework and resources Activity 3.3: Development of arrêtés and other legislative instruments to bring into force relevant legislation and policies Work with the Ministry to evaluate gaps in implementation of legislation Work with and support Ministry to develop suitable arrêtés and other legislative instruments to fill gaps as required, in consultation with stakeholders, e.g. via organisation of stakeholder workshops, support for legal and drafting Identify resources required to implement legislation on the ground and support the Ministry in identifying resources where necessary Action Lead Action Participants Timeframe Stakeholders Status PIs directly addressed PIs indirectly addressed Milestones Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Ministry of Fisheries and the Marine Economy GCM, IMROP, 5 years Fishers, buyers, processors, CSRP, AMP High priority D1, D2, E1 A1, A3, C1, D3 Evaluation of gaps in management and regulation Development of corrective and appropriate legislation Capacity / catch evaluation in relation to objectives (e.g. TAC or via other management means). Approval of new management instruments Agreement of management actions, approval of management plan Implementation of management plan Page 13 of 17

14 Table 6. Activites 4 (PIs D3, B1) 4. Information on the ecosystem / discards / endangered species / ecosystem and precautionary approaches Activity 4.1: Data collection on discards and endangered or threatened species interactions Support IMROP in the analysis of existing observer data (EU), if not already done Work with cooperative skippers to assess the best way of collecting data from Mauritanian vessels from different fleets; e.g. observers, cameras, other methods; identify funding sources Implement an observation scheme, working with cooperative skippers Work with IMROP to analyse data Work with the Ministry to implement additional management measures for bycatch or endangered / threatened species protection, if necessary according to the data Activity 4.2: Evaluation of the impact on the ecosystem Work with IMROP to support work on ecosystem impacts of the fishery in Mauritania; e.g. supporting work to develop the existing ecosystem model, supporting joint funding proposals with other regional or international groups or by some other suitable means Incorporate the results of the study into the development of objectives and management plans (see Activity C), so that ecosystem impacts are restrained at an appropriate level Action Lead IMROP Action Participants MPEM, GCM, ONG, fishers, appropriate scientific collaborators Timeframe 3 years if no additional management required, 5 years if required Stakeholders Scientists, fishers, Ministries of Fisheries and Maritime Economy, nature conservation organisations Status high priority PIs directly addressed D3, B1 PIs indirectly addressed A3, C1, D1, D2 Milestones Year 1 Existing data analysed and reviewed, and overlapping / cooperating projects identified; at-sea observation scheme developed; ecosystem modelling project developed Funding sources identified Year 2 Funding mobilised, observations started, ecosystem impact analysed information fed into Activity C Page 14 of 17

15 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Ecosystem model finalised / updated Additional management requirements identified, if any Additional management requirements implemented if required Page 15 of 17

16 Table 7. Activities 5 (PIs E1, E2) 5. Implementation of an effective monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) system Activity 5.1: Compliance gap evaluation Evaluate for the small pelagic fishery specifically the key issues with compliance / enforcement in relation to existing laws, working with stakeholders Evaluate likely issues for compliance / enforcement in relation to proposed new measures required under new objectives / management plans Evaluate with stakeholders how these gaps could best be filled (e.g. support to existing compliance structures vs. development of new methods) Activity 5.2: Identify and coordinate with other relevant projects Assess relevant fisheries carrying out similar work in the area Engage with identified projects Work together to meet shared targets Activity 5.3: Support to improve compliance Identify and source means (resources and funding) to fill gaps identified above Support projects for compliance improvement Action Lead Action Participants Timeframe Stakeholders Status PIs directly addressed PIs indirectly addressed Milestones Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 MPEM Mauritanian Coast Guard, fishers, gendarmerie maritime, customs, competent courts 4 years Processors, port authorities, ONISPA, DMM high priority E1, E2 A1, D1 MCS gap analysis via an external, publich and independent analysis, leading to MCS plan. Identification of sources of finance. Finance mobilised New MCS project underway if required Implementation of MCS plan Page 16 of 17

17 5. Lists of Figures and Tables Table Number Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table Name Proposed Units of Assessment for the FIP Summary scoring of the fishery against the IFFO-RS standard Support the creation development of an inter-ministerial commission for trans-boundary pelagic fish stocks in the region Improve the data available for stock assessment Implementation of an effective compliance system 6. References Fréon P (2017) Evaluation des faiblesses de la pêcherie de petits pélagiques à la senne tournante en Mauritanie, sur la base du standard IFFO-RS version 1.5 Guénette S, Meissa B, Gascuel D (2014) Assessing the Contribution of Marine Protected Areas to the Trophic Functioning of Ecosystems: A Model for the Banc d Arguin and the Mauritanian Shelf. PLoS ONE 9(4): e Page 17 of 17