MSC Gap Analysis for the Peruvian anchovy for DHC

Transcription

1 MSC Gap Analysis for the Peruvian anchovy for DHC MSC Performance Indicators Summary Principle 1 Stock status Score Observation Outcome Stock status 70 Demonstrate that SG80 are met Stock rebuilding NA Harvest Strategy 75 Idem Harvest control rules and tools 75 Well defined rules are required Management Without unreported fishing it would be Information and monitoring > Assessment of stock status 100 Principle 2 Ecosystem impacts Outcome 83 Primary There is neither specific strategy nor Management species regular revision Information 90 Secondary species ETP Outcome Management 75 There is no regular revision Information Outcome <60 RBF Result Management Information Outcome Habitats Management Information Outcome Ecosystem Management Information Principle 3 Management System Governance and policy Fishery specific system It will receive a score after implementation of the observers program Legal and customary framework Consultation and consistent Consultation, roles and responsibilities involvement Long term objectives Set specific objectives for the Fishery specific objectives ecosystem Decision making processes <60 Unreported fishing and vessels Compliance and enforcement without fishing permit Management performance evaluation 70 Regular self-assessment process Colour code: Below 60 points Between 60 and 79 points At least 80 points Between 85 and 100 points October 6th, 2016 Page 1 of 45

2 Outcome 70p Stock status 1.1.1A The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem impacts. Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment. Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs. It is likely that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur. It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur. The stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with ecosystem needs. high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur. high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with ecosystem needs or has been above this level over recent years. To determine the indicator score, Peruvian anchovy is considered as a low trophic level species and key to the ecosystem. The role of Peruvian anchovy in the ecosystem is very interesting. However, regarding the standard application there is no doubt about the score criterion to be used. Indeed, Peruvian anchovy plays a role as forage for seabirds (in several cases above 90% of their diets Jahncke et al, 1998a-), some of them in a very vulnerable situation, for some fish species (see below) and it is one of the most important feeding alternatives for marine mammals (South American Sea Lion: 31%, South American Fur Seal: 38% -Zavalaga et al, 1998b-). Recently, it has been demonstrated (Alegre et al, 2016) that Peruvian anchovy does not play a key role in feeding a series of migrating pelagic molluscs and fish, apart from tuna. For those species, the consumption of euphausiids is more important. However, this work does not contemplate the diet of demersal fish species. Previous works show the variability of the role of Peruvian anchovy for demersal species of the shelf such as hake. They confirm that, in many time periods, euphausiids play a more determinant role than engraulids for feeding those species and, in other periods, the opposite holds true. According to the IMARPE activity report corresponding to the IV quarter of 2015, in the dietary analysis of the following demersal and coastal species, Peruvian anchovy played a very important role: silverside: 34,8%; comber: 81,1%; weakfish: 91,8%; flounder: 79,1%. Moreover, for common squid, engraulids represented 65% of the species that could be recognised in the stomach. In our view point this is evidence enough to consider Peruvian anchovy as one of the key species of the ecosystem, mainly of the marine-coastal ecosystem. Therefore, based on this consideration, we should use the standard demonstrating that the system responds to the needs of said ecosystem. In Tam et al (2010), critical fishing mortality in relation to the needs of the ecosystem is established between 0.8 and 1.5. This work also illustrates that the populations of seabirds and sea lions increased during the decade of the 2000s and, even though there was a clear impact of the Peruvian anchovy fishing mortality, especially in areas close to the nesting areas, the October 6th, 2016 Page 2 of 45

3 main impact over the seabirds populations could come from other anthropogenic activities that had a negative impact on those habitats, as well as to the El Niño phenomenon. Tam et al (2010) also established a critical number for the population of guano birds, estimated in 6 million individuals. According to SERNAMP data (see chart here below), since 2014 they had gone beyond that threshold, recording in 2015 more than 8 million guano birds, although the situation of the gannet or Peruvian pelican is a cause of concern. According to the peer revision of the 2009 Peruvian anchovy stock assessment, in that decade the fishing mortality moved between 0.6 and 0.8 (Díaz E. et al 2010). According to the public information available, fishing mortality between 2011 and 2015 has been as follows (CeDePesca, 2016): Year Fannual F/Ft It can be seen that fishing mortality has been well below the lower critical level, determined at 0.8 by Tam et al. Recent data pertaining to populations depending directly or indirectly from this food source do not show a general declining trend. For instance, sea lion populations show a variable behaviour prone to growth. Evolution of sea lion population Source SERNAMP. The Humboldt penguin population, important consumer of Peruvian anchovy, shows a growing trend. October 6th, 2016 Page 3 of 45

4 Evolution of Humboldt penguin population Source SERNAMP The guano bird populations, important Peruvian anchovy consumers, show the same upward trend, excepting the gannet (pelican), whose population has been reduced probably due to anthropogenic impacts, more direct that those due to the trophic chain or the action of egg and nestling predators. However, this dilemma might only be solved by in situ observations. Evolution of guano birds populations Source SERNAMP According to the requirements for MSC certification, a fishery whose objective is a key species of low trophic level should fulfil the following: When scoring PI 1.1.1A scoring issue, the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur shall be interpreted as being substantially higher than the point at which recruitment is impaired (PRI), as determined for the target species in a single species context. a. Such point may be analytically determined from ecosystem models, but in any case shall not be less than 20% of the spawning stock level that would be expected in the absence of fishing. From the previous description, it seems clear that the fishing levels of the last few years are not the cause of serious ecosystem impacts. Moreover, the recovery of different populations feeding on Peruvian anchovy leads us into thinking that it is highly likely that the stock would be above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur. Therefore, we consider that SG 80 is fulfilled for scoring issue of this indicator. October 6th, 2016 Page 4 of 45

5 When scoring PI 1.1.1A scoring issue, the expectations for key low trophic level (LTL) species shall be as given bellow: a. The default biomass target level consistent with ecosystem needs shall be 75% of the spawning stock level that would be expected in the absence of fishing. b. A higher or lower target level, down to a minimum allowed 40% of the spawning stock level that would be expected in the absence of fishing, may still achieve an 80 level score if it can be demonstrated, through the use of credible ecosystem models or robust empirical data for the UoA/ecosystem being assessed, that the level adopted: i. Does not impact the abundance levels of more than 15% of the other species and trophic groups by more than 40% (compared to their state in the absence of fishing on the target LTL species); and ii. Does not reduce the abundance level of any other species or trophic group by more than 70%. Bearing in mind that, according to personal communications with local scientists, reaching the biomass level by default is neither possible nor necessary, the impact of the fishery according to item b (in bold) is more difficult to demonstrate in an analysis such as this one, and would require an additional effort. Therefore, so far we cannot affirm with certainty that scoring issue at SG80 is met. However, it is highly likely that the answer is affirmative because several populations that feed on Peruvian anchovy have shown growing trends in the fishing context over the last few years. Probably these trends could be consolidated with spatial measures that protect feeding areas of higher vertebrates during the reproductive and growing seasons. In such case, an additional reduction of fishing mortality would not be necessary. Performance against these reference points shall be judged (in PI 1.1.1A) in the context of recrutiment variability typical for the given species in its ecosystem. It is very important that the analysis takes into account the extreme variability of this ecosystem. Moreover, averages of various years should be considered when analysing the situation, as they illustrate the ecosystem s resilience under fishing conditions. According to the information available, we can affirm that this indicator will receive at least a score of 70 points. October 6th, 2016 Page 5 of 45

6 Outcome N/A Stock Rebuilding Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe. Rebuilding timeframes Rebuilding evaluation A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time. For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.!! Monitoring is in place to determine whether the rebuilding strategies are effective in rebuilding the stock within the specified timeframe. 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. The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generation time for the stock. There is strong evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within the specified timeframe. October 6th, 2016 Page 6 of 45

7 Harvest strategy () Harvest strategy robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place. Harvest strategy design!! Harvest strategy evaluation (c) Harvest strategy monitoring The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock objectives reflected in PI SG80. The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock objectives reflected in PI SG80. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock objectives reflected in PI SG80. The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. (d) Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. (e) Shark finning It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. 75p (f) Review of alternative measures There has been a review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock and they are implemented as appropriate. biannual review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock, and they are implemented, as appropriate. a) SG 80: The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock objectives reflected in PI SG80. See PI October 6th, 2016 Page 7 of 45

8 b) SG 80: The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. The last hydroacoustic assessment of the stock shows that, despite there is a percentage of unreported catch, the strategy is achieving its objectives. c) SG 60: Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. The existing monitoring is more than enough to verify this statement. e) SG 80: It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. Given the fishery features, this item does not need demonstration. f) SG 60: There has been a review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. frequent improvement process, although there is no standard mechanism for it. For instance, in 2013 D.S PRODUCE was passed, proposing an adaptive approach towards the problem of juvenile discards with closures and area changes if juveniles were present. At the time of drafting the present analysis, a new regulation is under public debate, granting in its article 3.2 forgiveness to those that catch more than 10% of Peruvian anchovy juveniles or other non-allowed species, but declare it immediately, thus allowing for the determination of a quick area change. October 6th, 2016 Page 8 of 45

9 Harvest strategy Harvest control rules and tools There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place. HCRs design and application HCRs robustness to uncertainty (c) HCRs evaluation Generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached. There is some evidence that tools used or available to implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. The HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY, or another more appropriate level taking into account the ecological role of the stock, most of the time. The HCRs take account of a wide range of uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs 75 p a) SG 60: Generally understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached. Using public information available in the IMARPE web page, we can observe this relationship between the biomass levels and the fishing mortality (bearing in mind that the exploitation rate E = F/(F+M) and M=0.83) per fishing season between 2012 and 2015: Biomass Fseason st 9,277, nd 5,225, st 12,129, nd 10,273, st 6,143, nd 4,390, st 9,417, nd 3,380, st 7,280, October 6th, 2016 Page 9 of 45

10 We can observe a season with F=0 in 2014, and the two seasons in 2013 had very low F due to the large presence of juveniles. Illustrating this in a chart, we can see a clear downwards trend of F with low biomass levels, even with the closure of the fishery in case of need: For the Peruvian system, an exploitation rate of E=0.35 is a limit to avoid. This exploitation rate is equivalent to F=0.49. It is easy to observe in the chart that this level has never been overcome in the last 5 years. Indeed, average F per season over this period has been Even though this rule exists and has been effectively applied, we cannot affirm that it is clearly defined so far. In consequence, SG80 would not be met for this item. b) SG 80: The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. Even though there is a percentage of unreported fishing in the minor fleet, so far it is a potential danger that should be solved but does not affect the objectives yet as regards desired levels of biomass and fishing mortality. Moreover, recently a new rule has been passed that establishes a global quota for Direct Human Consumption (DHC). It is still to be implemented effectively, but it should solve the problem of uncontrolled growth of this catch. In addition, through personal communications we have learned that IMARPE takes into account in its stock assessments the so called invisible fishing, but of course it will be necessary to publish this estimate together with the complete stock assessment. c) SG 80: Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. As we have mentioned, there is available evidence that shows this effectiveness. However, more attention should be paid to the growth of unreported fishing to avoid lack of control of the system in the future. October 6th, 2016 Page 10 of 45

11 Harvest strategy Information / monitoring Relevant collected to support the harvest strategy. Range of information Monitoring (c) Comprehensiveness of information Unreported fishing prevents a higher score 70p Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy. Stock abundance and UoA removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data are available to support the harvest strategy. Stock abundance and UoA removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, UoA removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available. All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and to this uncertainty. a) SG 80: Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data are available to support the harvest strategy. There is evidence about the availability of this information. Nevertheless, it would be advisable to have more precise data about the minor-scale and artisanal fishery that operates on the resource, especially the percentage that operates without a fishing licence. b) SG 60: Stock abundance and UoA removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. Evidence supports the existence of the monitoring effort, as well as the harvest control rule, even though there is distortion caused by unreported fishing. In addition, IMARPE takes into account an invisible fishing factor in its assessments and recommendations. However, this should be put to public consideration. October 6th, 2016 Page 11 of 45

12 c) SG 80: There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. This criterion is not met: there is direct and indirect information about all sources of stock removal. The fish meal production in marginal fish meal plants is a good proxy for unreported removals. However, these data have been recently removed from the statistics. The register of artisanal vessels and minor-scale vessels is below the figures estimated in Freón et al (2014); therefore, the same applies to landing volumes. October 6th, 2016 Page 12 of 45

13 Harvest strategy 100 p Assessment of stock status n adequate assessment of the stock status. Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Assessment approach (c) Uncertainty in the assessment (d) Evaluation of assessment (e) Peer review of assessment The assessment estimates stock status relative to generic reference points appropriate to the species category. The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty. The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule. The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated. The assessment takes uncertainty into account. The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. The assessment takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed. Few doubts remain about the excellent assessment of this stock under the difficult environmental conditions of the Peruvian sea and bearing in mind the existence of mortality factors due to unreported fishing. According to a recent assessment performed by two experts hired by the FAO, the assessment methods are appropriate and scientifically sound, based on years of development and revision (FAO, 2014). October 6th, 2016 Page 13 of 45

14 Primary species 90 p Outcome Status The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Main primary species stock status Minor primary species stock status Main primary species are likely to be above the PRI OR If the species is below the PRI. the UoA has measures in place that are expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding Main primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI OR If the species is below the PRI, there is either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. high degree of certainty that main primary species are above PRI and are fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. For minor species that are below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species According to the new MSC standard, primary species are those under a specific strategy. According to data from onboard observers of the artisanal and minor-scale fishing fleet; among the species to be found in by-catch, those with a certain regime are longnose anchovy, jack mackerel and mackerel. Among them, only longnose anchovy (Anchoa nasus) moves above 5% of the catch occasionally. In those occasions, due to warm phenomena, it becomes the main primary species. In contrast, jack mackerel and mackerel normally do not go above that threshold according to available IMARPE data for the smallscale and artisanal fleet. October 6th, 2016 Page 14 of 45

15 Percentages of other species caught in the Peruvian anchovy DHC fishery 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Pesquería anchoveta CHD Otras pesquerías Source: Daily reports of artisanal and small-scale fleet year 2014 (IMARPE) and landings 2014 (PRODUCE). Longnose anchovy is not included due to the lack of total landing data for this species in PRODUCE. Therefore, we consider for longnose anchovy that SG 80 is met for item a), as it is certain that longnose anchovy catch by the UoA does not endanger the reproductive capacity of this stock (Bouchon M., 2007). SG 100 is not met because we do not have certainty that this stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. If a PSA was to be applied, or risk analysis, we would reach a score of 83 for this species, bearing in mind its availability is low. Indeed, catch is more frequent in Ecuador. Productivity Scores [1-3] Susceptibility Scores [1-3] Cumulative only Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level Density Dependance Total Productivity (average) Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Catch (tons) Weighting Weighted Total Weighted PSA Score MSC PSA-derived score Risk Category Name MSC scoring guidepost Low 80 For jack mackerel and mackerel, SG 100 is met because given the percentage of catch of these species by the fleet under consideration, it is impossible that they might prevent the recovery of the jack mackerel stock or that it might cause a deterioration of the mackerel stock. October 6th, 2016 Page 15 of 45

16 Primary species Management strategy strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species; and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Management strategy in place Management strategy evaluation (c) Management strategy implementation (d) Shark finning There are measures in place for the UoA, if necessary, that are expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels which are likely to be above the PRI. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar UoAs/ species). It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. partial strategy in place for the UoA, if necessary, that is expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above the PRI. There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/ partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or species involved. There is some evidence that the measures/ partial strategy is being implemented successfully. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and minor primary species. Testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy/ strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or species involved. There is clear evidence that the partial strategy/ strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue. high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. 70p (e) Review of alternative measures review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species. regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species and they are implemented as appropriate. biannual review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of all primary species, and they are implemented, as appropriate. SG60 : There are measures in place for the UoA, if necessary, that are expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels which are likely to be above the PRI. The only species of this type we could consider is the longnose anchovy (Anchoa nasus). As we have seen, catch is occasional and are mainly related with the inflow of warm waters from the October 6th, 2016 Page 16 of 45

17 north. This species is part of the same regime as Peruvian anchovy. Therefore, we can affirm that there are measures in place that are expected not to hinder rebuilding of this population. SG80 : There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or species involved. According to the information obtained from PRODUCE, catch is at random and there are no indications of changes in this regard. Therefore, it is highly likely that the fishery would not hinder rebuilding of the stock in case of need. Longnose Anchovy landings Source: PRODUCE SG80 (c): There is some evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully. As mentioned in the previous item, there is no apparent risk for this stock in relation to the central-northern Peruvian anchovy fishery. SG80 (d) It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. In this fishery that practice does not exist. SG60 (e): review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species. Even though it is not a regular practice, there are revisions each certain time to improve the effectiveness of the adopted measures, especially to avoid the catch of Peruvian anchovy juveniles. This also prevents indirectly the catch of juveniles of other species, such as longnose anchovy, that during certain periods of time share with Peruvian anchovy the same ecological niche. October 6th, 2016 Page 17 of 45

18 Primary species Information Information on the nature and amount of primary species taken is determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species. Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main species Qualitative estimate the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. OR If RBF is used to score PI for the UoA: Qualitative estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Some quantitative available and is assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. OR If RBF is used to score PI for the UoA: Some quantitative assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Quantitative available and is assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on main primary species with respect to status. Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor species Some quantitative estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. (c) Information adequacy for strategy Information is support measures to manage main primary species. Information is support a partial strategy to manage main primary species. Information is support a strategy to manage all primary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. 90p SG80 : If RBF is used to score PI for the UoA: Qualitative estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species. The assessment has been performed without any inconvenience. SG100: Some quantitative estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. In this case, there is more information for minor species (jack mackerel and mackerel) than for the main ones. October 6th, 2016 Page 18 of 45

19 SG100 (c): Information is support a strategy to manage all primary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. The information gathered by onboard observers includes an important percentage of minorscale and artisanal fleet catch. These data are enough to measure the impact of this activity on each one of these species. October 6th, 2016 Page 19 of 45

20 Secondary species 90p Outcome Status The UoA aims to maintain species above a biological based limit and does not hinder recovery of species if they are below a biological based limit. Main species stock status Minor species stock status Main species are likely to be above biologically based limits. OR If below biologically based limits, there are measures in place expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Main species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits OR If below biologically based limits, there is either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. high degree of certainty that main species are above biologically based limits For minor species that are below biologically based limits there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of species. The most import species are the following: bonito, skipjack, greater silver smelt, catfish, jack mackerel, sciaena deliciosa, weakfish, silverside, chiri peprilus medius, minnow and large seabass. None of these species is above 5% of the total catch so there are no main species for this indicator. Therefore, it reaches automatically a score of 80. For all these species considered as minor, it is possible to estimate that, due to the proportion of their catch in the total landings, they would not be hindered in their recovery and rebuilding (see chart in PI 2.1.1). A risk analysis performed 4 years ago shows a consistent result: October 6th, 2016 Page 20 of 45

21 Productivity Scores [1 3] Susceptibility Scores [1 3] PSA scores (automatic) Nombre comun EPM EM F LM LPM ER NT Rr V A S MPC Rq Puntaje PSA Categoria de Riesgo Anchoveta Low Corvina Low Samasa Low Jurel Low Bonito Low Caballa Low Cojinoba Low Bagre Low Bobo Low Cabinza Low Camotillo Low Lisa Low Lorna Low Mojarrilla Low Pejerrey Low Raya Med Pampano pintado Low Pez espejo Low Some of the species registered in the risk assessment do not appear in the IMARPE data. Consequently, it would be convenient to validate these data with direct onboard observations. October 6th, 2016 Page 21 of 45

22 Secondary species Management strategy strategy in place for managing species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of species; and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Management strategy in place Management strategy evaluation (c) Management strategy implementation d) Shark finning (e) Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above biologically based limits or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar UoAs/ species). It is likely that shark finning is not taking place. review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of main species. partial strategy in place, if necessary, for the UoA that is expected to maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above biologically based limits or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/ partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or species involved. There is some evidence that the measures/ partial strategy is being implemented successfully. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of main species and they are implemented as appropriate. strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and minor species. Testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy/ strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or species involved. There is clear evidence that the partial strategy/ strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue. high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. biannual review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of unwanted catch of all species, and they are implemented, as appropriate. 75p As there are no main species in this category, all the SG related to these species should be considered as approved as neither measures nor strategy are required to ensure the UoA does not prevent the recovery of the stocks. In SG80 scoring issue (e) is not met as there is no October 6th, 2016 Page 22 of 45

23 regular revision of the impact on these species to determine if mitigation measures are needed. Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Secondary species Information Information on the nature and amount of species taken is determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effective-ness of the strategy to manage species. Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main species Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor species Qualitative estimate the impact of the UoA on the main species with respect to status. OR If RBF is used to score PI for the UoA: Qualitative estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for main species. Some quantitative available and is assess the impact of the UoA on the main species with respect to status. OR If RBF is used to score PI for the UoA: Some quantitative assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main species. Quantitative available and is assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on main species with respect to status. Some quantitative estimate the impact of the UoA on minor species with respect to status. (c) Information adequacy for strategy Information is support measures to manage main species. Information is support a partial strategy to manage main species. Information is support a strategy to manage all species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. 90p SG80 : If RBF is used to score PI for the UoA: Some quantitative assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main species. There has been no problem in performing the assessment. SG100 : Some quantitative estimate the impact of the UoA on minor species with respect to status. October 6th, 2016 Page 23 of 45

24 There is enough information gathered by onboard observers to estimate the UoA impact. SG100 (c): Information is support a strategy to manage all species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. The information gathered by the onboard observers includes an important percentage of the minor-scale and artisanal fleet, and it is enough to measure the impact of this activity on each one of these species. October 6th, 2016 Page 24 of 45

25 ETP species <60p Outcome Status The UoA meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Effects of the UoA on population/ stocks within national or international limits, where applicable!! Direct effects (c) Indirect effects Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the population/ stock are known and likely to be within these limits. Known direct effects of the UoA are likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species. Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, the combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the population /stock are known and highly likely to be within these limits. Direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species. Indirect effects have been considered for the UoA and are thought to be highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts. Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, there is a high degree of certainty that the combined effects of the MSC UoAs are within these limits. high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the UoA on ETP species. This indicator would reach less than 60 points due to the lack of information and the precautory assumptions. A risk analysis performed in 2012 showed high risks for a group of higher vertebrates. This risk score could only be reduced through direct observation of the real impact of the UoA on these species. Productivity Scores [1 3] Susceptibility Scores [1 3] Nombre comun EPM EM F LM LPM ER NT Rr V A S MPC Rq Puntaje PSA PSA scores (automatic) Categoria de Riesgo Pelicano High Guanay High Pingüino Low Cormoran High Chuita High Piquero Med Lobo marino fino Med Delfin nariz botella High Lobo marino chusco Med Tortuga pico de loro Med Tortuga verde Med October 6th, 2016 Page 25 of 45

26 ETP species Management strategy The UoA has in place precautionary strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; and - ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Management strategy in place (alternative) (c) Management strategy evaluation (d) Management strategy implementation (e) Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of ETP species There are measures in place that minimise the UoA-related mortality of ETP species, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. There are measures in place that are expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar UoAs/ species). review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of ETP species. strategy in place for managing the UoA s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. strategy in place that is expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. n objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy/ strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or the species involved. There is some evidence that the measures/strate gy is being implemented successfully. regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality of ETP species and they are implemented as appropriate. comprehensive strategy in place for managing the UoA s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. comprehensive strategy in place for managing ETP species, to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. The strategy/ comprehensive strategy is mainly based on information directly about the UoA and/or species involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. There is clear evidence that the strategy/ comprehensive strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue or. biannual review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoArelated mortality ETP species, and they are implemented, as appropriate. This indicator will be assessed once we gather data from the onboard observers. So far, this indicator would score below 60 points as it is not possible to determine if the current October 6th, 2016 Page 26 of 45

27 measures (such as the creation of a guano island protected area) have contributed effectively to minimize the direct impact of the UoA on these species. Once the real impact is determined, it will be possible to assess the necessary mitigation measures, although some scientific research have strongly recommended the use of temporary fishery closures during the reproductive season of these species around the areas where this phenomenon takes place. October 6th, 2016 Page 27 of 45

28 ETP species Information Relevant collected to support the of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: - information for the development of the strategy; - information to assess the effectiveness of the strategy; and - information to determine the outcome status of ETP species Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Information adequacy for strategy Qualitative estimate the UoA related mortality on ETP species. OR If RBF is used to score PI for the UoA Qualitative estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Information is support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species Some quantitative assess the UoA related mortality and impact and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. OR If RBF is used to score PI for the UoA: Some quantitative assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Information is measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species Quantitative available to assess with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. Information is support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. As previously seen, so far we are missing the data necessary to measure UoA impacts. The risk analysis calls for the gathering of relevant information directly from the fishing activity. So far it is missing and the assessment should be performed on the basis of the data collected by the onboard observers. October 6th, 2016 Page 28 of 45

29 Habitats Outcome status 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. Commonly encountered habitat status VME habitat status (c) Minor habitat status The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. As in the case of ETP species, it will be necessary to understand the interactions between the minor-scale and artisanal fishery and the sea bed before giving a score to this indicator. It is likely that a risk analysis would allocate between 60 and 79 points, as fishermen avoid the interaction with steep and rugged sea beds. To give a score to this indicator it will be necessary to perform said analysis first; and then, it will be necessary to gather direct information from the fishery through onboard observers. October 6th, 2016 Page 29 of 45