Marine Stewardship Council. Habitats CR Changes. CAB Training September 2014

Transcription

1 Marine Stewardship Council Habitats CR Changes CAB Training September 2014

2 Disclaimer If any interpretive issues arise in relation to the issues covered in these presentations, the text of the English MSC Scheme Documents will prevail in all instances. The MSC is not responsible for any issues arising to any parties as a result of consulting this presentation. This presentation is also not intended to act as interim verification of assessor competency. If you are unsure of any details on any of the subjects covered, or reference to this presentation, please consult the relevant MSC scheme documents or contact the MSC at standards@msc.org. MSC Executive September 2014

3 Question for You What do you know about the habitats issues being addressed by the FSR?

4 Learning Objectives Serious or irreversible change definition Main and minor habitats Habitat area considered Cumulative impact on vulnerable marine ecosystems Information/ monitoring To understand the P2 habitats changes

5 Default Assessment Tree (Habitats)

6 Serious or Irreversible Harm = Reductions in habitat structure and function such that the habitat would be unable to recover at least 80% of its structure and function within 5-20 years if fishing on the habitat were to cease entirely. Important Guidance: Recovery to at least 80% of the level to which the habitat would eventually recover in the absence of all fishing ( unimpacted level ). Vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) with long recovery times should not be reduced to state below 80% of their unimpacted level. If the VME has been altered completely so that the pre-existing state does not exist, recovery of that state is not expected; however if recovery of the pre-existing state is possible, this should be considered by the assessment team.

7 Main Habitats = a. A commonly encountered habitat a habitat that regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with the habitat s range within the managed area and/or b. A VME encountered by the UoA as defined by the FAO Guidelines

8 Habitats Outcome PI Managed Area Area of habitat consideration changed from: The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. To: The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates.

9 Habitats Outcome PI New scoring issues Component PI Scoring issues Habitats Outcome Status a. Commonly encountered habitat status The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. b. VME habitat status c. Minor habitat status

10 The Revised Outcome PI Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Habitats Outcome Status The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. a. Commonly encountered habitat status b. VME 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. c. Minor habitat status 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.

11 Scoring Issue Changes to Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Habitats Management strategy 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. a. Management strategy in place b. Management strategy evaluation c. Management strategy implementation d. Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs /non-msc fisheries measures to protect VMEs There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar UoA/habitats). There is qualitative evidence that the UoA complies with its management requirements to protect VMEs. There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/ partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. There is some evidence that the measures/ partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on habitats. Testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. There is clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue a. There is clear quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where relevant.

12 Measures and Strategies Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Habitats Management strategy a. Management strategy in place There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in in place, if necessary, that place for managing the is expected to achieve the impact of all MSC Habitat Outcome 80 level of UoAs/non-MSC fisheries performance or above. on habitats. 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. For UoAs encountering VMEs: Measure = include (1) requirements to comply with management measures to protect VMEs and (2) implementation by the UoA of precautionary measures to avoid encounters with VMEs, based on commonly accepted move-on rules Partial strategy = include (1) requirements to comply with management measures to protect VMEs and (2) implementation by the UoA of precautionary measures to avoid encounters with VMEs, such as scientifically based, gear- and habitat-specific move-on rules or local area closures Strategy = includes a comprehensive management plan that is supported by a comprehensive impact assessment that determines that all fishing activities will not cause serious or irreversible harm to VMEs

13 Cumulative Impacts Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Habitats Management strategy 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. d. Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs /non-msc fisheries measures to protect VMEs There is qualitative evidence that the UoA complies with its management requirements to protect VMEs. There is some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. There is clear quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. To avoid cumulative impact of serious or irreversible harm to VMEs, teams assess extent to which the UoA: Takes into account and implements, where relevant, precautionary protection measures implemented by other MSC UoAs (such as closed areas arising from move-on rules) Takes into account information from non-msc fisheries, where available and where relevant Where relevant = Consideration only of areas where closure is clearly aimed (i.e., based on scientific rationale and best practice) at precautionary protection of VMEs and not closures that are designed for other purposes; Avoidance of closed areas arising from move-on rules and consideration of other measures implemented by all MSC UoAs; and Avoidance of any relevant move-on areas implemented by non-msc fisheries if the area coordinates are available (e.g., made publicly available by the non-msc fisheries management entity) MSC UoAs = UoAs that are in assessment or certified at the time the UoA announces its assessment or reassessment on the MSC website

14 Main and All Habitats Added to Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Habitats Information / monitoring 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. a. Information quality The types and distribution of the main habitats are broadly understood. b. Information adequacy for assessment of impacts OR if CSA is used to score PI for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear. The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA. OR if CSA is used to score PI for the UoA: Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. The distribution of all habitats is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats. The physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have been quantified fully. OR if CSA is used to score PI for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. OR if CSA is used to score PI for the UoA: Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. c. Monitoring!! Adequate information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats. Changes in all habitat distributions over time are measured.

15 VME and Closed Area Requirements Component PI Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 Habitats Information / monitoring 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. a. Information quality The types and distribution of the main habitats are broadly understood. b. Information adequacy for assessment of impacts OR if CSA is used to score PI for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts of gear use on the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear. The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA. OR if CSA is used to score PI for the UoA: Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. The distribution of all habitats is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats. The physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have been quantified fully. OR if CSA is used to score PI for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. OR if CSA is used to score PI for the UoA: Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. c. Monitoring!! Adequate information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats. Changes in all habitat distributions over time are measured.

16 Thank you! Questions? For more information please contact: Jodi Bostrom Photo credit: Jodi Bostrom