MSC PRE-ASSESSMENT REPORT

Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative Sea Perch (Lateolabrax japonicus) Purse Seine Fishery

3-20-7-205 Minato-cho, Funabashi-shi Chiba Prefecture, Japan Mr. Kazuhiko Ohno Kaiko Bussan Co.Ltd. http://www.daidenmaru.com

DATE OF REPORT March 28, 2016

Prepared by: Dr. Jocelyn Drugan, Consultant Dr. Reiko Omoto, Consultant

Sustainable Seafood Natural Resources Division +1.510.452.6392 [email protected]

2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main | +1.510-452-8001 fax www.SCSGlobalServices.com SCS Global Services Report

Contents Glossary ...... 3 1. Executive summary ...... 4 2. Introduction ...... 6 2.1 Aims/scope of pre-assessment ...... 6 2.2 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery ...... 7 2.3 Unit(s) of Assessment ...... 7 2.4 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 8 3. Description of the fishery ...... 9 3.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme ...... 9 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 10 3.3 Principle One: Target species background ...... 11 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem background ...... 20 3.5 Principle Three: Management system background ...... 27 4. Evaluation Procedure ...... 31 4.1 Assessment methodologies used ...... 31 4.2 Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment ...... 31 4.3 Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment ...... 32 4.4 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries ...... 32 5. Traceability (issues relevant to Chain of Custody certification) ...... 33 5.1 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further Chains of Custody ...... 33 6. Preliminary evaluation of the fishery ...... 33 6.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree ...... 33 6.1.1 Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) ...... 34 6.2 Evaluation of the fishery ...... 35 6.2.1 Other issues specific to this fishery ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 6.3 Summary of likely PI scoring levels ...... 35 References ...... 40

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 2

SCS Global Services Report

Glossary

Blim Limit reference point for spawning stock biomass CAB Conformity Assessment Body cm Centimeter CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort DAT Default Assessment Tree ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected FAO Food and Agriculture Organization [of the United Nations] FCA Fisheries Cooperative Association FCR Fisheries Certification Requirements [MSC] g Gram (0.001 kg) IPI Inseparable or Practically Inseparable IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature m meter MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries [Japan] mm millimeter mt metric ton MSC Marine Stewardship Council NGO Non-Governmental Organization PI Performance Indicator PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment PSA Productivity Susceptibility Analysis RBF Risk Based Framework SCS Scientific Certification Systems SG scoring guidepost SICA Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis US United States VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem WWF World Wildlife Fund

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 3

SCS Global Services Report

1. Executive summary

This report discloses the results of a Marine Stewardship Council pre-assessment of one Unit of Assessment (UoA): Japanese Sea Perch (Lateolabrax japonicus) harvested by purse seine in the geographic region of Tokyo Bay, Japan, as permitted by the Chiba Prefecture and managed by the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative. The pre-assessment was undertaken by an SCS Global Services expert team via the fishery client, Kaiko Bussan Co. Ltd., based out of Funabashi, Chiba Prefecture, Japan. To our knowledge, this is the first time that any component of the Japanese sea perch fishery has undergone pre-assessment against the MSC standard.

Table 1: Description of the fishery’s Unit of Assessment.

Stock/Species Method of Capture Fishing fleet

(FCR V2.0 7.4.7.1) (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.2) (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.3)

Tokyo Bay Japanese sea perch Purse seines The Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative (Lateolabrax japonicus) operating out of Chiba prefecture oversees 6 purse seine vessels that There may be two stocks, one harvest sea perch in Tokyo Bay. These in the inner bay and one in the 6 vessels comprise the UoA. outer bay. However, there is no stock-specific monitoring of abundance or catch, so we suggest including both stocks within this UoA.

The client for this pre-assessment is Kaiko Bussan, a fishing operator with 4 purse seine vessels that target sea perch, among other species (See Overview of the Fishery Section 3.2). Kaiko Bussan is a member of the Northern Tokyo Bay Purse Seine Association, which is in turn a member of the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative. The Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative manages several fisheries originating from Chiba Prefecture, including the operation of 6 Chiba Prefecture purse seine vessels targeting sea perch in the Tokyo Bay, including those of Kaiko Bussan.

In addition to the Funabashi Cooperative-managed vessels, there are 10 other registered purse seine vessels registered to fish commercially for sea perch in Tokyo Bay, as well as other targeted sea perch fishing by trawl vessels and recreational fishers. Only purse seine vessels registered as a member of the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative are considered as part of the UoA for the purposes of this pre-assessment as the Funabashi Fishery Cooperative has distinct voluntary management measures that were evaluated by the assessment team here. In addition, the team evaluated catch data from Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative vessels.

Therefore, the Unit of Assessment considers all 6 vessels in the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative. The Unit of Certification has not been determined at this point, but may encompass the entire UoA, or a

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 4

SCS Global Services Report subset of vessels (e.g. Kaiko Bussan-owned vessels only). This assessment was primarily conducted by Dr. Jocelyn Drugan and Dr. Reiko Omoto under the guidance of SCS Global Services. The assessment was carried out using the MSC Certification Requirements v2.0 (Effective April 1, 2015) and the associated V2.0 reporting template.

Activities conducted for the pre-assessment included on-site meetings held on February 18 and 19, 2016. The onsite meetings were held at four agencies/industry with the following attendees; Chiba Prefectural Office with Mr. Ayumu NAGANO, Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative with Mr. Koji MATSUMOTO and Mr. Fumio WANOUCHI, Chiba Prefectural Tateyama Extension Office with Mr. Norihiko SHOJI and Kaiko Bussan with Mr. Kazuhiko OHNO (the client). All meetings were also attended by Mr. Ohno, Shinichi Matsurra and Mr. Makoto Suzuki of MSC Japan (only the 2nd day). The pre-assessment team also had regular conversations with the client, Kaiko Bussan, Ltd., to ask questions about the fishery and obtain documentation, facilitated by client liaison, Shin-Ichi Matsuura, of Fisheries Techno-services CO., Ltd. (FIT).

Summary of Findings

Overall, the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative Japanese sea perch fishery does not yet appear to be compatible with achieving a passing score against the MSC standard. Based on the current state of the fishery and evidence provided to the assessment team, the fishery would not presently pass any of the three MSC Principles (1, 2, &3). In each Principle there is at least 1 Performance Indicator (PI) that falls below SG60, representing a pre-condition to certification.

In order to achieve certification a fishery must have zero PIs that fall under SG60, and each one and all of the three Principles must score an average of 80 or higher.

For Principle 1, fishery strengths include the stock status of sea perch, which appears to be at low risk of having poor status. However, there is some uncertainty because sea perch abundance and productivity indicators are not regularly monitored or used for making management decisions. Another strength is that the client fishery makes efforts to avoid harvesting juvenile sea perch and releasing those that are incidentally caught. One major issue that affects scoring of Principle 1 PIs is the lack of precautionary harvest control strategies that respond to the state of the sea perch stock, which is linked to the lack of stock status monitoring. Two PIs scored at the 60 to 80 level, while three PIs scored below the 60 level. For Principle 2, positives include the quantitative catch information collected on primary species stocks, such as Japanese sardine, which are regularly assessed by the Fisheries Research Agency. However, the lack of documented management measures or harvest strategies for primary, secondary, and ETP species lowered scores of management-related PIs (PIs 2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.3.2). Limited monitoring of encounters with ETP species and fished habitats led to lower scores for Principle 2 PIs related to information availability. Nine PIs scored at the 60 to 80 level, while five PIs scored below the 60 level. We had insufficient information to score PI 2.5.1, for which risk-based framework (RBF) tools may be employed in full assessment.

For the Principle 3, the fishery has strengths in that all purse-seine vessels operating under Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative are clearly identified and defined. However due to the perceived abundance of sea perch, the fishery is lacking precautionary measures or rules essential for alignment with sustainable fisheries management according to the MSC standard. Among Pls under

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 5

SCS Global Services Report

P3, 6 PIs scored between 60-80 and 1 PIs fell below 60. All of the PIs scored below 60 and many of between 60-80 deals with fishery objectives especially long-term objectives and monitoring / surveillance mechanism to make sure the objectives are achievable in precautionary fashion. However, several of those PIs below 60 have potentials to earn higher scores if the client and related stakeholders are cooperative enough to assemble all the existing informal practices into explicit and transparent forms.

All scores and rationales provided are considered preliminary and are not binding to scoring and rationales in future full MSC assessment.

2. Introduction This report sets out the results of a Marine Stewardship Council pre-assessment of the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative purse seine fishery for Japanese sea perch in Tokyo Bay, Chiba Prefecture. This assessment refers to the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (the ‘MSC standard’).

Products originating from MSC certified fisheries are eligible to carry the blue-eco-label of the MSC.

The blue eco-label is a symbol that is easily recognized by consumers so that they can be confident that they are purchasing a seafood product that originates from a sustainable source. This pre- assessment will aid in determining whether this fishery may be prepared for an MSC assessment. The report can provide guidance only and the outcome of a full assessment will be the subject of deliberation by an assessment team. A full MSC assessment would not necessarily be influenced by the results of this pre-assessment. In the MSC assessment process, the burden of proof is on the fishery. The assessment team may only consider information that is also available to the public and it is the client’s responsibility to assemble an information package for the assessment team. The MSC assessment process is also a public process where the public is invited to engage in contributing to the assessment.

2.1 Aims/scope of pre-assessment The principal aim of the pre-assessment is to determine, on the basis of information made available by the client, the position of the fishery in relation to the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria. In particular, the pre-assessment will: • Outline the key components of the fishery and determine the scope of the main certification • Identify any obstacles or problems for certification • Provide a recommendation on whether or not the fishery may be ready to proceed with MSC certification

It should be noted that no verification of information or contacting of stakeholders has taken place at this stage. This would be part of a full MSC assessment which is open to public scrutiny and comment. This report sets out: § Species biology and description of the fishery § Geographic range § Life-cycle and reproduction § Role of the fish species in the ecosystem § Stocks in the area

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 6

SCS Global Services Report

§ The Unit of Certification in Pre-Assessment § Historical background of the fishery and research § Description of fishery management § Other fisheries in the vicinity § Disposition of the product § Stakeholders § Preliminary evaluation of the fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria § Obstacles or problems to certification for the fishery in the form of potential Conditions to meet before entering full assessment § A recommendation as to whether or not the fishery should move to main assessment at this time § Description of next steps in the Certification process

2.2 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery

The fishery client and stakeholders we consulted were generous in sharing available information, but one limitation was that abundance of the target species is not regularly monitored or assessed. Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF) collects and reports catch data, but catch information alone is insufficient for evaluating stock status. The National Institute of Environmental Research conducts surveys in Tokyo Bay and estimates CPUE for sea perch, so we included that information in this report.

2.3 Unit(s) of Assessment

The client company, Kaiko Bussan, harvests Japanese sea perch in Tokyo Bay using mid-sized round haul nets, which are also called purse seines. There are three fisheries cooperatives in Chiba prefecture that include purse seine vessels targeting sea perch: the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative, the Futtsu Fisheries Cooperative, and the Tateyama Fisheries Cooperative. Kaiko Bussan belongs to the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative, whose membership includes a total of 6 purse seine vessels, 4 of which belong to Kaiko Bussan. The Futtsu and Tateyama Fisheries Cooperatives oversee 4 and 2 purse seine vessels, respectively. Thus in Chiba prefecture, there are a total of 12 purse seine vessels targeting sea perch.

We therefore defined the Unit of Assessment (UoA) as described in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Description of the fishery UoA. There is 1 unit for consideration.

Stock/Species Method of Capture Fishing fleet

(FCR V2.0 7.4.7.1) (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.2) (FCR V2.0 7.4.7.3)

Tokyo Bay Japanese sea perch Purse seines The Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative (Lateolabrax japonicus) operating out of Chiba prefecture oversees 6 purse seine vessels that There may be two stocks, one

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 7

SCS Global Services Report in the inner bay and one in the harvest sea perch in Tokyo Bay. These outer bay. However, there is no 6 vessels comprise the UoA. stock-specific monitoring of abundance or catch, so we suggest including both stocks within this UoA.

In MSC assessments, the Unit of Certification (UoC) may encompass the entire UoA, or include only a subset of fishing vessels. The client may determine this at the time of entering full assessment. If this occurs then the Unit of Certification would be smaller than the Unit of Assessment, and there will be “other eligible fishers” – vessels/operators/fishers whose impacts have been assessed in the Unit of Assessment, but who are not allowed by the client to be “on the certificate” and therefore eligible to have their product carry the MSC ecolabel. The Unit of Certification (UoC) has not yet been defined, but is likely to be composed of the Kaiko Bussan fleet of four purse seine vessels. Two additional purse seine vessels belong to the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative and are considered part of the UoA, but their owner may not be interested in certification.

Outside of the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative, there are ten purse seine vessels that harvest sea perch in Tokyo Bay. Three prefectures border Tokyo Bay: Chiba, Kanagawa, and Tokyo. Within Chiba prefecture, 2 vessels belong to the Tateyama Fisheries Cooperative, and 4 vessels belong to the Futtsu Fisheries Cooperative (Ohno, Kazuhiko, pers. comm. 03/15/16). Within Kanagawa prefecture, there are ten licensed small purse seine vessels that target sea perch (Ohno, Kazuhiko, pers. comm. 03/15/16). Tokyo prefecture harvests smaller quantities of sea perch (141 mt caught by all gear types in 2014, according to MAFF), and the metropolitan government does not issue licenses for trawlers or purse seine vessels (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, pers. comm., 03/26/2016). Harvests for Tokyo prefecture are typically from gillnet fishers, who do not require licenses (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, pers. comm., 03/26/2016). Each prefecture has its own fisheries management scheme, and management measures may vary among cooperatives as well. Thus, these ten purse seine vessels are not considered eligible fishers.

Tokyo Bay sea perch are also harvested by other gear types (e.g. trawls and gillnets) and by recreational fishers, but these fisheries should not be included in the UoA because gear impacts differ and are not assessed under the current UoA scope. There may be two sea perch stocks within Tokyo Bay, but we do not recommend defining a separate UoA for each stock due to lack of stock- specific monitoring.

2.4 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

There is no TAC or official catch limit for sea perch. However, catch information from the client, the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative, and MAFF is shown in Table 2.4. The client fishery is based in Funabashi, a city within Chiba prefecture. Recreational catches are not typically monitored, so there is information for only one year when a study was conducted (MAFF 2008). Catch statistics for Chiba, Kanagawa and Japan total include another sea perch species (Lateolabrax latus) and aquaculture production.

Based on catch data from the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative, UoA sea perch harvests averaged 436 mt per year from 2003 to 2014, while client (Kaiko Bussan) harvests averaged 279 mt per year from 2007 to 2014 (Table 2.4). The client catch therefore represents about 64% of UoA catch. Kaiko Bussan uses purse seine vessels that are 13 tonnes.

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 8

SCS Global Services Report

The two main gear types used by the UoA to harvest sea perch are purse seine and trawl, particularly since 2008 (see Table 2.4). As mentioned previously, 16 purse seine vessels based in Chiba and Kanagawa prefectures target sea perch in Tokyo Bay. According to the Chiba and Kanagawa prefectural governments, there are 239 small trawlers (each vessel < 15 tons) in Chiba and 93 small trawlers in Kanagawa that are licensed to fish in Tokyo Bay (Katano and Kato, pers. comm., 03/16/16). However, not all license holders fish. Out of Tokyo Prefecture, there are no licensed purse seine or trawl vessels, but there is an active gill net fishery.

Table 2.4 Sea perch catch data (in metric tons). ‘MAFF’ refers to data from MAFF, which cover commercial catches, while ‘rec.’ refers to recreational catches. Sources: catch records from Kaiko Bussan, Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative, and all Prefecture level data (Chiba, Kanagawa, and Tokyo) are from MAFF. Kaiko Funabashi Funabashi Funabashi Japan Bussan FCA FCA City Chiba Chiba Kanagawa Tokyo total Year (seine) (seine) (trawl) (total) (MAFF) (rec.) (MAFF) (MAFF) (MAFF) 2003 376 329 2000 686 105 10136 2004 494 202 833 1964 814 123 10052 2005 517 365 1138 2426 844 152 10578 2006 468 439 1532 2887 955 141 11442 2007 305 490 422 1529 2803 756 159 10766 2008 305 439 586 1033 2659 19 674 134 10251 2009 238 361 5296 871 2140 723 114 8950 2010 288 424 5206 950 2316 561 109 8968 2011 277 390 4336 841 2053 678 95 8412 2012 250 377 440 822 2158 630 117 8518 2013 296 476 475 891 1978 503 131 7801 2014 272 429 401 2168 711 141 8065

3. Description of the fishery

3.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme

The Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative Japanese Sea Perch fishery has been found to meet scope requirements (FCR v2.0 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments as it § Does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, use destructive fishing practices, target amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals and is not overwhelmed by dispute; (FCR 7.4.1.1, 7.4.1.2, 7.4.1.3, 7.4.2)

§ The fishery does not engage in shark finning, has mechanisms for resolving disputes (FCR 7.4.2.1), and has not previously pre-conditioned assessment or had a certificate withdrawn.

§ Is not an enhanced or IPI fishery, is not based on an introduced species (FCR 7.4.3, 7.4.4, 7.4.13-15). Although aquaculture of sea perch is still practiced in some parts of Japan, there has been no aquaculture or juvenile releases in Tokyo Bay for at least the past ten years.

§ Does not overlap with another MSC certified or applicant fishery (7.4.16),

§ And does not include an entity successfully prosecuted for violating forced labor laws (7.4.1.4)

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 9

SCS Global Services Report

During full assessment, the Unit of Assessment, the Unit of Certification, and eligible fishers will be clearly defined, traceability risks characterized, and the client will give a clear indication of their position relative to certificate sharing (7.4.6-7.4.12).

3.2 Overview of the fishery Sea perch are a culturally important fish that have historically been used as religious offerings (Association for Promotion of National Rich Oceans 2015). They are highly desirable for human consumption, and in addition to being fished commercially, sea perch are a popular target species for recreational fishermen. Recreational harvests are small compared to commercial harvests (Table 2.4).

Tokyo Bay (Figure 1) produces the largest proportion of Japan’s total wild capture sea perch harvest in Chiba prefecture (average of 85% from 1958 to 1997; Ocean Policy Research Foundation 2012). Sea perch are caught using gillnets, small bottom trawls, purse seines (including round haul nets), pole and line, and set nets. Sea perch may also be caught on longlines, although longline catches are relatively small (Nagano, Ayumu, pers. comm. 02/18/2016). The assessment team received data on client purse seine catches, Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative catches (purse seine and trawl), as well as total commercial catches for Funabashi City and Chiba prefecture. Some gillnet fishing takes place under Chiba prefectural management, and small-scale pole and line fishing may occur as well. Information on all gear types used, including recreational gear types, and their landings would require verification in full assessment. The relative importance of sea perch to Tokyo Bay fisheries has increased over time, as catches of some other species (e.g. marbled sole and mantis shrimp) have decreased (Ishii and Kato 2005).

Figure 1. Map of Tokyo Bay area, including locations and geographic features relevant to the fishery. Some edits made to original image from http://www.geo4u.net/jpkanynb.html

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 10

SCS Global Services Report

The client fishery under assessment uses medium size purse-seine vessels targeting mainly sea perch operating under licenses issued by the Governor of Chiba Prefecture. The client vessels belong to the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative, which is one of 32 fisheries cooperative associations (FCAs) under Chiba Prefectural management (known as the Fisheries Federation). Funabashi FCA’s membership encompasses multiple fishing activities and includes the following individual human members: 43 from trawl fisheries, 3 from purse seine fisheries, 16 from seaweed (nori) cultivation, 52 from shellfish production, 3 from clam production, and 41 younger generation members (Funabashi FCA, pers. comm., 03/24/2016). The younger generation members are fishermen under age 60 who meet to discuss the future of the fishery. They are not affiliated with a specific gear type.

Three individual purse-seine operators under Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative formed the Tokyo Bay Northern Purse Seine Operators’ Cooperative (Tokyo-wan Hokubu Makiami Jigyo Kyoudoukumiai) (Funabashi FCA). Two of these operators comprise Kaiko Bussan: Mr. Kazuhiko Ohno (holds two fishing licences for two vessels) and Mr. Nakamura (holds two fishing licences for two vessels). The third operator, Mr. Kazutoshi Ohno (holds two fishing licences for two vessels), is not part of Kaiko Bussan but is included in the Unit of Assessment.

The Tokyo Bay Northern Purse Seine Operators’ Cooperative is the direct management group of the fishery in scope, but it mainly deals with the management of shared shipways and mooring posts. Fisheries management is handled primarily by the high management authority: the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative.

Tokyo Bay purse seine fisheries target sea perch, Japanese sardine (Sardinops melanostictus, マイワ シ), dotted gizzard shad (Konosirus punctatus, コノシロ), chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus, マサ バ), and Japanese jack mackerel (Trachurus japonicus, マアジ), although catches of chub mackerel and jack mackerel are relatively small (Table 3.4.1). Other species that are not targeted but are retained include flathead grey mullet (Mugil cephalus, ボラ), red barracuda (Sphyraena pinguis Gunther, カマス), silver croaker (Pennahia argentata, シログチ), spotnape ponyfish (Nuchequula nuchalis, ヒイラギ), Japanese black seabream (Acanthopagrus schlegeli, クロダイ), and Japanese amberjack (Seriola quinqueradiata, ブリ).

3.3 Principle One: Target species background

Background Biology The species under assessment is Japanese sea perch (Lateolabrax japonicus; also commonly called Japanese sea bass), hereafter referred to as sea perch. In Japan, sea perch are distributed in coastal areas from southern Hokkaido and southward. They can be found on off the coast in the East China Sea, around reefs, and within bays (Kato and Ikegami 2004). Sea perch are also found around the Korean peninsula, Taiwan, and China (Association for Promotion of National Rich Oceans 2015). Another Lateolabrax species, blackfin seabass (L. latus), is also found in Japan. National fisheries statistics include both species, but most of the sea perch catch in Tokyo Bay is L. japonicus. According to the client, sea perch and blackfin seabass can be easily distinguished by body shape, so these are not likely to be inseparable or practically inseparable (IPI) species.

Japanese nomenclature for sea perch varies by fish size, roughly as follows: koppa (fry), hakura (less than 15 cm), seigo (15-40 cm), fukko (40-60 cm), and suzuki (> 60 cm). Males mature at age 3 around a body length of 24.5 cm, while females mature at age 4 at a length of 34 to 37 cm (Association for Promotion of National Rich Oceans 2015). Sea perch are protandrous, with males turning into

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 11

SCS Global Services Report females as they become older and larger (Froese and Pauly 2015). The maximum observed size is about 90 cm, and the maximum age 7 years. At a length of 51-61 cm, female fecundity is 177,000 to 233,000 eggs (Association for Promotion of National Rich Oceans 2015). The trophic level is 3.4 according to Fishbase.org (Froese and Pauly 2015).

Japanese sea perch can tolerate varying salinity from open ocean to freshwater, and they sometimes inhabit rivers (Ocean Policy Research Foundation 2012). According to the Kanagawa Fisheries Research Institute, sea perch spawn from autumn to winter in coastal reef areas. Spawning females release eggs at depths of 30 to 40 m. Eggs are buoyant and hatch in about four to five days at a water temperature of 14°C. Hatched larvae float for about two months before developing into seigo, when they enter seagrass beds and/or nearshore rivers to rear.

Fry consume zooplankton such as copepods and cladocerans, polychaetes, and larval shrimp. Adults (> 20 cm in body length) consume ayu (Plecoglossus altivelis), Japanese anchovy (Engraulis japonicus), Japanese jack mackerel (Trachurus japonicus), Japanese sardine (Sardinops melanostictus), chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), Japanese tiger prawn (Marsupenaeus japonicus), and Japanese halfbeak (Hyporhamphus sajori). Adult sea perch also consume crustaceans. Sea perch fry are preyed upon by a cyprinid (, Hemibarbus barbus), Japanese dace (, Tribolodon hakonensis), spiny goby (, Acanthogobius flavimanus), and larger conspecifics (Association for Promotion of National Rich Oceans 2015). Information on predators of adult sea perch was not provided, but they are likely consumed by larger piscivorous species such as sharks (Shoji, Nakahiro, pers. comm, 02/19/2016).

In Tokyo Bay, most spawning is thought to occur near the mouth of the bay. In addition, eggs have been observed off the coasts of Miura peninsula, Uchibou, Futtsumisaki, and Kannonzaki. From spring to fall, fish from the bay may inhabit the lower reaches of rivers including the Tama River, Arakawa River, and Edo River. Sea perch have been observed as far as 154 km upstream of the Tone River estuary at the Tone Dam (Ocean Policy Research Foundation 2012). Juveniles rear in the Banzu tidal flats and eelgrass beds of the Futtsu tidal flats. According to a habitat study conducted in Tokyo Bay, sea perch use freshwater, tideland, sandy, reef/rocky, and deep habitats, with the latter two habitat types used for spawning (Akiyama et al. 2014).

Tokyo Bay sea perch have biological characteristics that suggest some resiliency (maturing at less than five years of age, high fecundity), but availability of rearing habitat and prey species may constrain productivity. Additionally, Tokyo Bay sea perch stocks have been subjected to high levels of exploitation for some time. Although the stocks appear suitable for commercial harvest, it is important to monitor abundance to avoid overfishing.

Stock status There are thought to be two sea perch stocks in Tokyo Bay, one in the inner bay and one in the outer bay. The two stocks show some physical differences in coloration and body shape, with the outer bay stock looking somewhat similar to blackfin seabass, but there appears to be no preferential harvest of one stock over the other. The Tokyo Bay sea perch stocks have not been assessed in recent years, and Chiba fishery management and research agencies have not consistently monitored abundance. For the purposes of the pre-assessment, the stocks have been considered together, but in a full assessment potential differential impacts of the fishery on the two stocks may be evaluated.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF) collects and publishes national and prefectural catch statistics. MAFF collects information by hiring statistics investigators who distribute questionnaires and gather responses, typically from FCAs. MAFF statistics aggregate catches of the

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 12

SCS Global Services Report two Lateolabrax species found around Japan, Japanese sea perch (L. japonicus) and blackfin seabass (L. latus), but sea perch catches within inner Tokyo Bay are almost all (~99%) L. japonicus (Shoji, Norihiko, pers. comm. 02/19/2016).

Although Chiba government agencies do not monitor sea perch abundance directly, the National Institute of Environmental Studies conducts research surveys of many species within Tokyo Bay, including sea perch. Professor Makoto Shimizu of Tokyo University started the survey program in 1977 and continued it until his retirement in 1995. There was a break in sampling until 2002, when the survey program was taken over by the National Institute for Environmental Studies. Surveyors sample 20 locations within Tokyo Bay four times per year: once in the spring, summer, fall, and winter. They use a beam trawl that is 5.5 m wide and 0.6 m high, with a mesh size of 3 cm in the cod end. They trawl for 10 minutes at a speed of two knots, collecting fish, crustaceans, molluscs, and urchins (National Research Institute 2015). They then estimate catch per unit effort (CPUE) for each species, in both numbers and weight.

CPUE estimates suggested that sea perch abundance was high in 2004 and 2007, but then started decreasing in 2012 (Fig. 2). The surveys also suggest that some crustacean species, which are important prey for sea perch, have declined sharply in abundance after the 1990s.

Figure 2. CPUE of sea perch in Tokyo Bay based on research surveys. The yellow bars represent CPUE in numbers of fish (number caught per 10 minutes of trawling; left y-axis), and the red dots represent CPUE in volume (g caught per 10 minute of trawling; right y-axis). Years are shown on the x-axis. Source: National Research Institute 2015.

These surveys do not focus on sea perch specifically, and the CPUE data do not appear to be used for sea perch management because the Chiba government generally claims that abundances appear high and stable. However, these survey data are quite valuable because they are the only abundance-related information available that has been corrected for fishing effort.

Due to the limited abundance information and lack of stock reference points, we evaluated Tokyo Bay sea perch stock status using the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) protocol described in MSC’s Risk Based Framework (RBF). The PSA looks at two main elements, productivity and susceptibility, each of which is scored based on risk to the stock involved. Productivity reflects the ability of a species to reproduce successfully. The assessment team uses stakeholder input to score the productivity of each data-deficient species on a three-point risk scale: low (1), medium (2) or high (3), using the cut-offs in the table below.

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 13

SCS Global Services Report

Fisheries Certification Requirements Table 2. PSA Productivity Attributes and Scores. Source MSC FCR V2.0: Table PF4.

Table PF4: PSA Productivity attributes and scores

Productivity determinant High productivity Medium High productivity (Low risk, score=1) productivity (high risk, score=3 (medium risk, score=2) Average age at maturity <5 years 5-15 years >15 years Average maximum age <10 years 10-25 years >25 years Fecundity >20,000 eggs per 100-20,000 eggs per <100 eggs per year year year Average maximum size <100 cm 100-300 cm >300 cm (not to be used when scoring invertebrate species) Average size at maturity <40 cm 40-200 cm >200 cm (not to be used when scoring invertebrate species) Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner Demersal egg layer Live bearer Trophic Level <2.75 2.75-3.25 >3.25 Density dependence Compensatory No depensatory or Depensatory dynamics at low compensatory dynamics at low

‼ population size dynamics population sizes (to be used when scoring demonstrated or demonstrated or (Allee effects) invertebrate species only) likely likely demonstrated or likely

SusceptibilityPF4.4 PSA considers the vulnerability of Step 2: Score the susceptibilityfish to capture and mortality from fishing. The team attributes ◙ scores the susceptibility of each data-deficient species using four susceptibility attributes (areal overlap (availability), encounterability, selectivityPF4.4.1 The team shall score the susceptibility of , and posteach data--deficient capture mortality species. ‼ on a 3-point risk scale: high (3), medium (2) or low (1), using the cutPF4.4.2 The team shall score 4 susceptibility- offs shown in the attributes (areal overlapbelow. (availability), encounterability, selectivity and post-capture mortality) on a 3-point risk scale: high (3), medium (2) or low (1), using the cut-offs in Table PF5. PF4.4.2.1 The team shall enter the 3-point scores into the “MSC RBF Worksheet” to calculate the overall susceptibility score. PF4.4.2.2 Where there is limited information available to score a susceptibility attribute, the more precautionary score shall be awarded. PF4.4.3 When scoring susceptibility, the team shall take into account the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA according to the following requirements: PF4.4.3.1 When scoring PI 1.1.1, all fisheries impacting the given target stock shall be identified and listed separately. ◙ PF4.4.3.2 When scoring PI 2.1.1, all MSC UoAs impacting each main primary species shall be identified and listed separately. ◙ PF4.4.3.3 When scoring PI 2.2.1, if the UoA has main species with catches at 10% or more of the total catch by weight of the UoA, all MSC UoAs having a catch of the same species that is 10% or more of the total catch of the UoAs shall be identified and listed separately. a. If the UoA does not have main species with catches at 10% or more of

Document: Process Annexes and Guidance page 83 Date of issue: 1st October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council 2014

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 14

Fisheries Certification Requirements

the total catch by weight of the UoA, the team may elect to conduct the PSA on the UoA only.

PF4.4.3.4 When scoring PI 2.3.1, only the UoA shallSCS be taken Global into account. Services Report

Table Table PF3. PSA 5: PSASusceptibility Susceptibility Attributes and Scores. Source MSC FCR V2.0: Table PF4attributes and scores .

Susceptibility attribute Low susceptibility Medium High susceptibility (Low risk, score=1) susceptibility (high risk, score=3 (medium risk, score=2) Areal overlap (availability) <10% overlap 10-30% overlap >30% overlap Overlap of the fishing effort with a species concentration of the stock Encounterability Low overlap with Medium overlap with High overlap with The position of the fishing gear (low fishing gear fishing gear (high stock/species within the encounterability) encounterability) water column relative to the fishing gear, and the position Default score for of the stock/species within target species (P1) the habitat relative to the position of the gear Selectivity of gear type a Individual < size a Individuals < size a Individuals < size Potential of the gear to at maturity are at maturity are at maturity are retain species rarely caught regularly caught frequently caught b Individuals < size b Individuals < half b Individuals < half at maturity can the size at the size at escape or avoid maturity can maturity are gear escape or avoid retained by gear gear Post-capture mortality Evidence of majority Evidence of some Retained species or (PCM) released postcapture released postcapture majority dead when The chance that, if captured, and survival and survival released a species would be released Default score for and that it would be in a retained species (P1 condition permitting or P2) subsequent survival

Overall scoring of the PSA : once the scores have been determined, the team uses an Excel- based spreadsheet available from MSC (the ‘MSC RBF Worksheet v2) to calculatePF4.4.4 Where the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA are taken into account a ‘PSA Score’ and then each convert to a MSC score as follows: fishery affecting the given stock shall be identified and listed separately. ◙ PF4.4.4.1 To account for impact of other fisheries on a given stock the team shall Score determineAssessment outcome the contribution of each fishery on the totalRisk catch of the given stock. 0 – 59 Fail High a. If precise catch data are available, weights for each fishery shall be 60 – 79 assigned Pass (with conditions) according to known proportions of total catchMedium of the given 80 – 100 stock. Pass (no conditions) ◙ Low b. If catch data are not available, a qualitative information-gathering To score the PSA, we used available information gathered during the site visits. For a full assessment, process shall be used and documented to apply a weight to each fishery according to scoring would require more explicit stakeholder input and assistance (see FCR PF4.2).

Although there may be more than one stock of sea perch within the bay (inner bay and outer bay Document: Process Annexes and Guidance page 84 stocks), we grouped them for this analysis due to the lack of stockDate of issue: 1st October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council 2014-specific information. For the susceptibility portion of the PSA, we considered the purse seine and bottom trawl fisheries conducted out of Funabashi, because they represent the two major gear types used to harvest sea perch commercially, and their combined catches make up the the total UoA catch (Table 2.4). PSA scores and rationales are described in Table 3.3.

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 15

SCS Global Services Report

Table 3.3. Information used to conduct Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for sea perch.

PI number 1.1.1 Stock Status

A. Productivity Scoring element (species) Attribute Rationale Score Average age at 3.5 years. Sea perch males typically mature at age 3, after which they may turn 1 Maturity into adult females around age 4 (Association for Promotion of National Rich Oceans 2015)

Average maximum 7 years (Froese and Pauly 2015) 1 age Fecundity Estimates of female fecundity range from 177,000 to 233,000 eggs. If total 1 lifespan is in the range of 7 years, and females mature at age 4, they will likely release at least 30,000 eggs per year (Association for Promotion of National Rich Oceans 2015)

Average maximum 90 cm (Froese and Pauly 2015) 1 size Average size at Males mature around a body length of 24.5 cm, while females mature at a length 1 Maturity of 34 to 37 cm (Association for Promotion of National Rich Oceans 2015) Reproductive Sea perch spawn from autumn to winter in coastal reef areas. Eggs are buoyant 1 strategy and hatch in about four to five days at a water temperature of 14°C (Ocean Policy Research Foundation 2012). This information suggests broadcast spawning. Trophic level The trophic level is 3.4 based on food items (Froese and Pauly 2015). 3

Density dependence Not applicable --

B. Susceptibility Fishery only where When scoring PI 1.1.1, all fisheries impacting the given target stock shall be the scoring element identified and listed separately [FCR PF4.4.3]. is scored cumulatively For the purposes of this analysis, we considered all major commercial gear types used to harvest sea perch in Funabashi (purse seine, bottom trawl).

Fishery Funabashi purse seine fishery for sea perch

Attribute Rationale Score The purse seine fishery targets sea perch within Tokyo Bay, likely with at 3 Areal Overlap least 30% areal overlap between fishing effort and the stock.

Encounterability Purse seines are typically operated at 10 to 30m depth (Ohno, Kazukhiko, 3 pers. comm. 02/18/2016), while sea perch are often found at depths of at least 5 m. There is likely high overlap with fishing gear.

Selectivity of gear Juveniles (< 20 cm in body length) are regularly caught, but the fishers 2 type

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 16

SCS Global Services Report

release them (Ohno, Kazuhiko, pers. comm. 02/18/2016).

Post capture There are no quantitative estimates of post-capture survival, but some of the 2 mortality released individuals likely survive.

Catch (weight) only Average catch was 436 mt from 2003 to 2014 (based on Funabashi Fishery -- where Cooperative catch records). the scoring element is scored cumulatively Fishery Funabashi bottom trawl fishery for sea perch

Attribute Rationale Score

The bottom trawl fishery targets sea perch within Tokyo Bay, likely with at 3 Areal Overlap least 30% areal overlap between fishing effort and the stock.

Encounterability There is likely high overlap between the fishing gear and sea perch within 3 the water column.

Selectivity of gear Juveniles are sometimes caught in trawls, and the client has heard that 2 type fishers release them. Verification of releases would be needed for a full assessment.

Post capture There are no quantitative estimates of post-capture survival, but some of the 2 mortality released individuals likely survive.

Catch (weight) only Average catch was 428 mt from 2003 to 2014 (based on Funabashi Fishery -- where Cooperative catch records). the scoring element is scored cumulatively

The PSA scoring worksheet gave a score of 90 for Tokyo Bay sea perch, which suggests low risk and a pre-assessment score of ≥80 for PI 1.1.1 (see Annex 1). Overall, it appeared that the Tokyo Bay sea perch stock is likely resilient, but the declining CPUE observed in recent years (Figure 2) is a concern.

In the case of a full assessment, the full RBF would be applied to the fishery, including both a consequence analysis (CA) and a PSA. The CAB conducting the assessment would use stakeholder input to complement any available fishery-specific data and scientific literature for scoring these analyses. For more background on the MSC Risk Based Framework, see Section 6.1.1 and the MSC website: https://www.msc.org/about-us/standards/fisheries-standard/msc-risk-based-framework.

Present day fishery management

Tokyo Bay produces the largest proportion of Chiba’s total wild capture sea perch harvest (average of 85% from 1958 to 1997; Ocean Policy Research Foundation 2012). Sea perch are caught using gillnets, small bottom trawls, purse seines (including round haul nets), pole and line, and set nets. Sea perch may also be caught on longlines, although longline catches are relatively small. The relative importance of sea perch to Tokyo Bay fisheries has increased over time, as catches of some other species (e.g. marbled sole and mantis shrimp) have decreased (Ishii and Kato 2005).

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 17

SCS Global Services Report

Sea perch are currently harvested in Tokyo Bay by commercial and recreational fisheries. Recreational harvests are small compared to commercial harvests (see Table 2.4), and a significant proportion of recreational fishers (perhaps about 50%) practice catch and release, especially for smaller sea perch less than 30-40 cm in length (Ozaki and Shoji 2001; Nagano, Ayumu, pers. comm. 02/18/2916). There are no official catch limits for sea perch, although some fishers, including the client, attempt to release small juveniles (Shoji, Norihiko, pers. comm. 02/19/2016). Fishers have expressed interest in maintaining abundance of sea perch, possibly through restrictions on fishing effort (Nagano, Ayumu, pers. comm. 02/18/2016).

Fishing areas within Tokyo Bay are shown in Figure 3. Relevant fishery cooperatives manage fishing activities within the set net and joint fisheries rights areas for all fisheries in Tokyo Bay (Ohno, Kazukhiko, pers. comm. 03/18/16). Licensed fishers that belong to Chiba prefecture can operate within the Chiba harbor boundaries on the east side of Tokyo Bay, while fishers that belong to Kanagawa prefecture can operate within Kanagawa harbor boundaries on the west side of Tokyo Bay (see Figure 3). Fishers with a license from either prefecture can fish in the middle of the bay under the respective fishing regulations stipulated by their license, prefecture, local fishery cooperative association (FCA) (e.g. Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative vessels continue to fish via Chiba Prefecture license requirements and the Cooperative management plan regulations while in fishing outside of Chiba Prefecture waters) (Ohno, Kazukhiko, pers. comm. 03/18/16). The client fishery has purse seine licenses from Chiba prefecture and can fish in the middle and eastern parts of Tokyo Bay.

Some fishers in the client company keep logbooks, recording information such as vessel departure/arrival time, fishing locations (area descriptions rather than GPS coordinates), catch volumes, weather information, and number of net casts (Ohno, Kazukhiko, pers. comm. 03/18/16). Logbooks are not mandatory, and there are no official logbook regulations (Ohno, Kazukhiko, pers. comm. 03/18/16). Logbook data are not verified by external parties.

The Chiba and Kanagawa prefectural governments oversee Tokyo Bay fisheries based on national legal frameworks and are responsible for issuing fishing licenses. The Kanto Agricultural Administration Bureau (Kanto Nosei Kyoku), which is the Kanto area’s branch of MAFF, is responsible for collecting catch statistics by geographic area, species and gear type. This bureau collects statistics from each FCA, while FCAs collect data from their wholesalers. However there may be some missing catch data because there are some fishermen who sell to other supply chains, such as direct sales though the internet (Funabashi FCA, pers.comm. 02/18/16). MAFF collects fisheries information by hiring statistics investigators who distribute questionnaires and gather responses.

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 18

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 3. Map of areas allotted for different fishery rights within Tokyo Bay. Source: Japan Coast Guard. Demarcated fishery rights and set net areas are not relevant to the purse seine sea perch fishery. Purse seines can be operated in joint fisheries rights areas, but because purse seines cannot be used in water shallower than 8 m, they can be used in only a limited portion of those joint areas (Nagano, Ayumu, pers. comm., 03/28/2016).

Sea perch are actively cultured, and artificially produced juveniles (referred to as seedlings) used to be released in Tokyo Bay, on the order of 60,000 to 300,000 seedlings per year from 1983 to 2003

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 19

SCS Global Services Report

(Shoji et al. 2002). In general, Fisheries Promotion Foundations (Koueki Zaidan Houjin Suisan Kinkou Kyoukai), which are affiliated with prefectural governments, manage seedling releases. Chiba has a Fisheries Promotion Foundation that currently releases red sea bream and flounder seedlings (Chiba Fisheries Promotion Foundation 2015). However, sea perch seedlings have not been released in Tokyo Bay within the past ten years because catches have been stable even without stocking. Sea perch are still cultured in some areas of Japan, but in many cases the cultured sea perch are a faster grower lineage from China called by a different name (tairikusuzuki). It is important to note that should any enhancement activities recommence the fishery would be considered an “Enhanced Fishery” under the MSC Standard and would be required to a) be found in compliance with special scoping requirements (FCR V2.0 Table 1), and if so, then b) be assessed under a modified assessment tree in accordance with FCR V2.0 7.7.4).

The Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative has its own management plan that members are encouraged to follow (Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative 2011). Participants’ names, vessels, vessel numbers, and fishing license numbers are registered and tracked each season. Management measures for purse seine fisheries relevant to Principle 1 include:

• no fishing in February • release of sea bream and flounder juveniles produced via aquaculture

The fishery closure in February is motivated by the poorer flesh quality (and hence lower value) of sea perch caught during that month, but it also falls during the tail end of the sea perch spawning season in Tokyo Bay, which runs from the end of October to the end of February (Ocean Policy Research Foundation 2012). So the closure may help reduce impacts on spawners, but only on the proportion that survives until February. Both of these measures are voluntary and are not government requirements. The plan specifies that the fishery cooperative will take appropriate actions if participants do not comply with these measures.

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem background

All species that are affected by the Unit of Assessment, whether or not they are part of the Unit of Certification, are considered under Principle 2 (P2). This includes species that are managed via biological reference points (assessed under Performance Indicator 2.1), not actively managed via biological reference points (Performance Indicator 2.2), and species that are considered endangered, threatened or protected by the government in question (Japan) or are listed by the Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES Appendix I) (Performance Indicator 2.3). This section contains an evaluation of the total impact of the fishery on all components in P2 and includes both observed and unobserved fishing mortality. Unobserved mortality may occur from illegal, unregulated or unreported (IUU) fishing, biota that are injured and subsequently die as a result of coming in contact with fishing gear, ghost fishing, waste, or biota that are stressed and die as a result of attempting to avoid being caught by fishing gear. This section also considers impacts on marine habitats (Performance Indicator 2.4) and the ecosystem more broadly (Performance Indicator 2.5).

Scope of P2

The analysis for P2 is made considering that the UoA is defined as Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative purse seine fisheries targeting sea perch in Tokyo Bay. The client provided annual catch data for all six Funabashi FCA purse seine vessels from 2003 to 2014. The data included catch volumes for sea

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 20

SCS Global Services Report perch, Japanese sardine, chub mackerel, Japanese jack mackerel, and gizzard shard, which are commercially valuable. The client described approximate catch volumes for other non-target species (such as flathead grey mullet and silver croaker) in the fishery application to SCS, but a time series of catch volumes for these non-target species was not provided. If catch volumes of non-target species are regularly monitored, those data would need to be provided in a full assessment.

Harmonization and Cumulative Impacts

To ensure that the cumulative impact of all MSC fisheries is within sustainable limits, a UoA assessed against standard V2.0 may need to consider the combined impact of itself and other overlapping UoAs. This determination will include other UoAs assessed against earlier versions of the CR (e.g., V1.3). UoAs assessed using default trees prior to CR v2.0 would not have to make this evaluation.

V2.0 of the MSC standard requires that any fishery under assessment that has spatial overlap with the Units of Assessment of any other MSC certified fisheries, be explicitly considered in Principle 2.

‘Overlapping UoAs’ are assessed at different levels depending on which PI is evaluated. For P2 primary species, teams need to evaluate whether the cumulative impact of overlapping MSC UoAs hinders the recovery of ‘main’ primary species. For secondary species, cumulative impacts only need to be considered in cases where two or more UoAs have ‘main’ catches that are ‘considerable’, defined as a species being 10% or more or the total catch. For ETP species, the combined impacts of MSC UoAs needs to be evaluated, but only in cases where either national and/or international requirements set catch limits for ETP species.

All of the requirements for cumulative impacts for species are applicable to their respective Outcome PIs. For habitats, in contrast, cumulative impacts are evaluated in the management PI (2.4.2). The requirements here aim to ensure that vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) are managed such that the impact of all MSC UoAs does not cause serious and irreversible harm to VMEs.

There are no overlapping, previously assessed UoAs within Tokyo Bay. Thus harmonization and assessment of cumulative impacts with other fisheries does not appear necessary.

Overview of the aquatic ecosystem

The fishery takes place in Tokyo Bay, which connects to the Pacific Ocean via the Uraga Channel (Figure 1). Tokyo Bay has a depth of about 50 m in its deepest parts, but the southern portion of the channel has submarine canyons more than 500 m deep (Encyclopedia of Japan 2012). The surface area of the bay is about 1500 square km (Encyclopedia of Japan 2012).

The Tokyo Bay environment has been considerably transformed by anthropogenic activities within the past fifty to sixty years. About 8000 hectares of Tokyo Bay tidal flats have been lost due to land reclamation, reducing available habitat to 1/8 of the level in the 1950s (Akimoto 2013). The Banzu, Sanbanze, and Futtsu tidal flats are some of the only natural portions remaining of Tokyo Bay’s 170 km coastline, making the flats valuable habitat for coastal organisms (Ocean Policy Research Foundation 2012). River inflows, which include wastewater and agricultural runoff, have reduced water quality and led to increased pollution, eutrophication, and hypoxia. Hypoxic water masses are a notable concern because most fish, including sea perch, cannot survive low oxygen conditions and

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 21

SCS Global Services Report will move to escape these masses (Ishii and Kato 2005). Hypoxia is an even greater problem for sessile organisms, such as clams, which die when they cannot escape hypoxic conditions. Land reclamation may have led increased persistence of hypoxic water masses by creating areas with drastic depth changes that experience less water turnover. Dams and weirs have been constructed on many rivers, reducing or eliminating upstream habitat for many species, including threatened species such as ayu (Plecoglossus altivelis) and Japanese eel (Anguilla japonica; Ocean Policy Research Foundation 2012). The dams have also reduced river flow rates into the bay, contributing to eutrophication (Ocean Policy Research Foundation 2012). Another environmental concern in Tokyo Bay is increasing occurrence of high water temperatures, which may affect circulation patterns, seaweed cultivation, and hypoxia (Shoji, Nakahiro, pers. comm, 02/19/2016). Trash and ghost fishing from lost fishing gear are also problems (Shoji, Nakahiro, pers. comm, 02/19/2016).

The previously mentioned research surveys conducted by the National Institute of Environmental studies have been very useful for evaluating changes in population dynamics within the Tokyo Bay ecosystem (Horiguchi 2005). Until 1987, abundances (measured as CPUE) of marbled flounder (Pseudopleuronectes yokohamae), dragonet (Repomucenus valenciennei), and mantis shrimp (Oratosquilla oratoria) were increasing, but then they declined sharply due at least in part to heavy fishing pressure. Mantis shrimp populations have not recovered despite fishermen’s voluntary efforts to stop catching them since 2005 (Kodama 2014). In contrast, sea perch abundance started increasing in the 1990s, and abundances of other species, such as skates (Okamejei kenojei) and cardinal fish (Apogon lineatus), have been relatively high in recent years (Ocean Policy Research Foundation 2012, National Institute of Environmental Studies 2015). The increasing abundance of larger predators such as skates and shark may affect dynamics of their prey populations, including sea perch (Shoji, Nakahiro, pers. comm, 02/19/2016).

Primary, secondary, and ETP species

According to MSC requirements for Principle 2 (FCR, SA3.1), primary species are defined as “species where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points.” Secondary species are defined as “species in the catch that are within the scope of the MSC program but are not considered primary or endangered, threatened, and/or protected (ETP) species.” Non-target species are further categorized as ‘main’ if they comprise more than a certain proportion of the catch (> 2% for less resilient species, > 5% for more resilient species).

In response to information requests, the fishery client provided a list of non-target species are retained or used or sold for bait (see Table 3.4.1). They also provided Funabashi FCA purse seine catch data from 2003 to 2014 for the commercially important species (Japanese sardine, chub mackerel, Japanese jack mackerel, and gizzard shad). For most of the remaining non-target species, the client provided an annual catch estimate on the fishery application to SCS. The exception was spotnape ponyfish, which was mentioned only when the assessment team asked about species that the fishers release. When calculating % of total catch, a total catch of 1307.5 mt was used, which was the average total catch volume of commercially important species from 2003 to 2014, plus catch volumes provided on the fishery application.

Table 3.4.1. Classification of primary and secondary species for the purpose of the pre-assessment. Catch volumes (in metric tons) and % catch information are for Funabashi FCA purse seine vessels. For the first four species, catch information was averaged from 2003 to 2014. For the remaining species, catch data were provided in the fishery application to SCS.

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 22

SCS Global Services Report

Table 4. Overview of Non-target Catch in the UoA from 2003-2014 (data from Funabashi FCA).

Species Catch volume % of total catch Classification (mt) Japanese sardine 312.5 24.0 Main primary (Sardinops melanostictus) Chub mackerel 68.5 5.2 Main primary (Scomber japonicus) Japanese jack mackerel 27.8 2.1 Minor primary (Trachurus japonicus) Japanese amberjack 0.4 < 0.1 Minor primary (Seriola quinqueradiata) Dotted gizzard shad 240.2 18.4 Main secondary (Konosirus punctatus) Flathead grey mullet 15.5 1.2 Minor secondary (Mugil cephalus) Red barracuda 11 0.84 Minor secondary (Sphyraena pinguis) Silver croaker 7.2 0.55 Minor secondary (Pennahia argentata) Japanese black seabream 0.8 < 0.1 Minor secondary (Acanthopagrus schlegeli) Spotnape ponyfish -- -- Minor secondary (Nuchequula nuchalis)

We evaluated only the main primary and secondary species for PIs 2.1.1 and 2.2.1. Gizzard shad juveniles are generally retained due to their commercial value, but grey mullet juveniles are released. Client fishers also attempt to release live juvenile red barracuda, silver croaker, and spotnape ponyfish, but these species apparently have low post-capture survival. Records are not kept on numbers of juveniles released.

In a full assessment, a more cohesive dataset of non-target catch of both commercially valuable and non-valuable species would be required.

Primary Species Although Japan does not manage its fisheries to meet specific target reference points, economically important species are assessed annually, and scientists estimate an allowable biological catch (ABC) for these assessed species. The ABC is used to determine a total allowable catch (TAC) for some species, including Japanese sardine, Japanese jack mackerel, and chub mackerel. TAC is used as guidance and does not mean that catch limits are strictly imposed, although the Japan Fisheries Agency may notify individual fisheries if their catches are high. We categorized these assessed species as primary. For this fishery, the only main primary species were Japanese sardine and chub mackerel.

Japan has two stocks of Japanese sardine, one in the Japan Sea and one in the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Ocean stock is distributed throughout the Pacific Ocean off the Japan coast and is also found in Tokyo Bay (Kawabata et al. 2014a). Japan’s catches of this stock were high in the 1980s (well over 2 million mt annually), but fishing pressure was high (estimated annual fishing mortality ranged from 20 to 60%), and catches fell dramatically starting around 1990. Since 2000, national catches have generally been less than 150,000 mt. Scientists estimate total biomass and spawning stock biomass of the stock each year through cohort analysis (Kawabata et al. 2014a). Their estimates suggest that biomass has been increasing slightly since 2010, when estimated annual fishing mortality was reduced to 15-20% (Kawabata et al. 2014a). There is a limit reference point for spawning stock biomass (Blim), defined as a historically low estimate of spawning stock biomass (221,000 mt) that was

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 23

SCS Global Services Report observed in 1996 (Kawabata et al. 2014a). The 2013 spawning stock biomass estimate exceeded the

Blim at 484,000 mt. The 2014 stock assessment rated the Pacific Ocean sardine stock as ‘medium’ status with an increasing trend within the past five years, based on the 2013 biomass estimate (714,000 mt) in relation to historical biomass estimates (Kawabata et al. 2014a).

Japan has two stocks of chub mackerel, one in the Pacific Ocean and one that inhabits the Sea of Japan and East China Sea around the Tsushima Warm Current. The Pacific Ocean stock is distributed throughout the Pacific Ocean off the Japan coast and is also found in Tokyo Bay (Kawabata et al. 2014b). Scientists estimate total biomass and spawning stock biomass of the stock each year through cohort analysis (Kawabata et al. 2014b). The 2013 biomass estimate was 1,360,000 mt, while the 2013 spawning stock biomass estimate was 41,000 mt, which was below the Blim of 45,000 mt. Blim is defined as a historically low estimate of spawning stock biomass, which was observed in 1985 (Kawabata et al. 2014b). The 2014 stock assessment rated the Pacific Ocean chub mackerel stock as ‘low’ status with an increasing trend within the past five years, based on the 2013 spawning stock biomass estimate being below Blim (Kawabata et al. 2014b).

For these two main primary species, the assessment team assumed the Blim was roughly equivalent the point below which recruitment may be impaired (PRI). Overall, it appears that stock status and management of primary species can be improved.

Secondary Species We evaluated main secondary species under PI 2.2.1 using PSA due to the lack of stock status information. For example, when the assessment team asked about dotted gizzard shad during site visits, stakeholders mentioned that abundances are not monitored. We obtained information about biological attributes (see Table 3.4.2) from Fishbase.org. For some productivity traits, we used ranges of estimates from closely related species within the same scientific family (Clupeidae for dotted gizzard shad). We generally assumed that susceptibility to the fishery was high, and when scoring selectivity, considered that juvenile gizzard shad are targeted because they are more commercially valuable than adults. When juveniles are preferentially targeted, productivity of the stock is negatively affected, so this may be an issue that will be investigated further in a full assessment. Where no information was available, we used the more precautionary score. Overall, the PSA suggested that PI 2.2.1 would score in the 60-79 range for gizzard shad (Table 3.4.2).

Table 3.4.2. Species biological attributes for main secondary species.

Species Avg age at Avg Fecundity Avg size at Avg max Reprod. Trophic maturity (years) max (eggs) maturity (cm) size (cm) strategy level age

Dotted 2 -- > 100 eggs 15 32 broadcast 2.9 gizzard shad per year spawner

Table 3.4.3. PSA scoring table for main secondary species.

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 24

SCS Global Services Report

There appears to be limited information on abundance trends in gizzard shad. Gizzard shard was not mentioned in the Tokyo Bay research survey materials we obtained from the National Institute for Environmental Research. The client fishery keeps records on volumes of gizzard shad they catch, but this information reveals little about abundance trends or sustainability of current harvest levels.

Endangered, Threatened, and Protected Species According to the relevant MSC Certification requirements (FCR V2.0), ETP species include those listed as: SA3.1.5.1 Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation; SA3.1.5.2: Species listed in the binding international agreements given below: a. Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the UoA under assessment is not endangered. b. Binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), including: i. Annex 1 of the Agreement on Conservation of Albatross and Petrels (ACAP); ii. Table 1 Column A of the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA); iii. Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS); iv. Annex 1, Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS); v. Wadden Sea Seals Agreement; vi. Any other binding agreements that list relevant ETP species concluded under this Convention. SA3.1.5.3 Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).

In Japan there is a Red Data Book that identifies ETP species found within Japan (Ministry of the Environment 2015). In terms of national legislation, Japan has a Law for the Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Law No. 75) that aims to ensure the conservation of endangered species and contribute to conservation of the natural environment (Ministry of the Environment 2016). There is also a Wildlife Protection and Hunting Law (Law No. 32) that aims to protect birds and mammals by placing restrictions on hunting and establishing wildlife protection areas (Ministry of the Environment 2016). None of these protected areas is located in Tokyo Bay.

Each prefecture has a Red List that is included in the Red Data Book. For Chiba, Tokyo, and Kanazawa prefectures, no marine species are listed. However, the Ministry of the Environment does not hold jurisdiction over marine areas. The Japan Fisheries Agency publishes a list of aquatic organisms that are relatively rare, but these are not included in the Red Data Book (Japanese Fisheries Resource Conservation Association 1998). Species in Tokyo Bay that appear in the above mentioned national legislation and/or CITES Appendix 1 and IUCN Redlist species in accordance with SA 3.1.5.3 would be evaluated for potential UoA impact in full assessment.

No records are kept of incidental catches of ETP species. Birds are reportedly caught once or twice a year when the round haul nets are lifted from the water, and dolphins or whales enter the nets on rare occasions. One time a sea turtle was caught in the net. Fishers attempt to release any marine mammals or turtles that are incidentally caught and still alive. During the site visits, we asked about ETP species occurring in Tokyo Bay, but none were identified. For a full assessment, a more thorough evaluation should be undertaken of any ETP species encountered in the fishery.

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 25

SCS Global Services Report

Habitats For the purposes of MSC assessment, main habitats are those that are considered ‘commonly encountered’ and/or vulnerable marine ecosystems (VME). ‘Main encountered’ habitats according to MSC FCR V2.0 GSA3.13.3.1 are defined as: “Commonly encountered habitats would likely include those that the target species favours, that the UoA’s gear is designed to exploit, and/or that make up a reasonable portion of the UoA’s fishing area.” VME’s may be characterized by uniqueness or rarity, functional significance, fragility, life-history traits of component species, and structural complexity (FCR GSA 3.13.3.2).

The Tokyo Bay area has been highly impacted by anthropogenic activity and development. The Banzu, Sanbanze, and Futtsu tidal flats are some of the only natural coastline areas remaining, making them important for the Tokyo Bay ecosystem. Vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) such as coldwater reefs are not thought to occur within the bay, but not much research on VMEs has been conducted (Nagano, Ayumu, pers. comm., 02/18/2016). Seagrass beds are important areas for spawning or rearing fish, and fishery management aims to maintain existing habitat (Nagano, Ayumu, pers. comm., 02/18/2016). However, it is not clear whether detailed information on habitat distribution and health are collected, and such information was not provided to the assessment team. Official protections do not appear to be in place.

According to the client, the areas they seine typically have soft, sandy bottoms, and purse seines sometimes contact the seafloor (Ohno, Kazuhiko, pers. comm. 01/20/2016). Rocky or muddy seafloor habitats may also be encountered. Nets sometimes get stuck on rocks, resulting in lost gear and potential ghost fishing, although fishers within the client fishery attempt to recover nets whenever possible (Ohno, Kazuhiko, pers. comm., 02/19/2016). In the client fishery, round haul nets are typically used at depths of 10 to 30 m. Nets are not operated in water depths of less than 8 m or within 80 m of nori seaweed cultivation areas (Ohno, Kazuhiko, pers. comm., 02/19/2016).

Because limited habitat information was provided, the assessment team used the RBF and a Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) to score PI 2.4.1. We identified and evaluated two main habitat types based on available information: 1) sand or mud flats and 2) flats with larger rocks. We followed scoring guidelines in FCR PF7, relying on surrogate scores for cases where data were not available.

Table 3.4.4. Scoring justification for habitats CSA.

Sand or mud flats Sediment flats with rocks Regeneration of biota No data, used surrogate score for inner No data, used surrogate score for inner shelf (25-100 m depth) shelf (25-100 m depth) Natural disturbance Fishing at occurs at 30-50 m, where Fishing at occurs at 30-50 m, where natural disturbances are likely natural disturbances are likely Removability of biota No data, used precautionary score No data, used precautionary score Removability of substratum Sediment particle size < 6 cm, used score Sediment particle size 6 cm to 3 m, used for Danish seine (most similar gear type score for Danish seine listed in FCR scoring guidelines) Substratum hardness Unconsolidated sediments Unconsolidated sediments Substratum ruggedness Flat, simple surface, used score for Danish Low relief surface with small boulders, seine used score for Danish seine Seabed slope Inner shelf, expected to be low slope Inner shelf, expected to be low slope Gear footprint Used score for Danish seine Used score for Danish seine Spatial overlap No data, assumed moderate overlap No data, assumed moderate overlap Encounterability No data, assumed moderate No data, assumed moderate encounterability encounterability

The CSA rated gear impacts as medium for both sand flats and flats with rocks (Table 3.4.5).

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 26

SCS Global Services Report

Overall, habitat damage from the seines is expected to be minimal because most of the bottom habitat is soft sediment, and the nets do not contact the seafloor for prolonged periods. However, fishing gear impacts on seafloor habitat have not been quantified and should be further evaluated in a full assessment. A full assessment will also require stakeholder input for scoring the CSA if a CSA is used. For more information on CSA scoring for habitat PIs, please see PF7 in the FCR.

Table 3.4.5. CSA scoring table for habitats.

Information regarding ecosystem impacts from fishing is limited. In a full assessment, the assessment team would likely need to conduct a Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) under the RBF to score PI 2.5.1, which considers the outcome of ecosystem impacts (see PF8 in the FCR). The SICA considers the spatial and temporal scales of fishing activity and the potential for fishing to impact the ecosystem, as well as the consequences of fishing activity on the most vulnerable ecosystems. Tokyo Bay survey data from the National Institute for Environmental Research will likely be relevant. SICA requires stakeholder input and is not typically conducted at the pre-assessment stage, so the PI 2.5.1 score will be determined in a full assessment.

3.5 Principle Three: Management system background

National Fisheries Management in Japan The primary law that regulates Japanese fisheries is the Fisheries Law (1949, revised in 1962), which deals with several kinds of fishing rights and licensing structures, and is the basis of Japanese fisheries (Makino 2013). The Law is administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) in cooperation with the prefecture governments for practical enforcement, as much of Japanese coastal water is administrated by adjacent prefectures.

The Fisheries Cooperative Association Law (1948 with consecutive amendments) forms the basis of the legal framework for local Fisheries Cooperative Associations (FCAs) to act as the institutions that carry out resource management at operational level. Therefore, this law and the Fisheries Law mentioned above are the two most important legal frameworks for Japanese fisheries management (Makino 2013). The area administrated by a FCA varies depending on local conditions. The responsibility of a local FCA is the management of particular geographical area and the governance is based on the membership of fishers operating within the area. An FCA develops its own regulations within national legislative frameworks, however, some of the regulations may be created by the FCA uniquely for the fishery/ies operating under control of the FCA. The everyday operations are essentially self-managed by the FCAs or federations of FCAs.

Japanese marine fisheries can be divided into three categories (areas); coastal fisheries, off-shore fisheries (within EEZ) and distant water fisheries. Coastal fisheries and off-shore fisheries are small- scale fisheries divided depending on the size of boats (less or more than 10 tons) (Makino 2013). Stock assessment conducted at National level includes 52 species with 84 stocks (MAFF). The Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is set on 7 particular species, namely Pacific saury, Walleye Pollock, Japanese

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 27

SCS Global Services Report jack mackerel, Japanese sardine, Chub mackerel and spotted chub mackerel, Japanese common squid and snow crab (MAFF). Sea perch is not included either in the national stock assessment nor the TAC.

The fishery permits for individual vessels occur via two separate licensing structures: Ministry Permits (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) and Prefectural Governor Permits depending on the size of vessels and targeted resources. Also, the jurisdictions for Common fishery rights are given to FCAs for fisheries targeting non-migratory species.

Fishery Specific Management for the Tokyo Bay Sea Perch Purse Seine Fishery The sea perch fishery in Tokyo Bay uses several fishing gears including purse seine, trawling, gill net and set net. In Tokyo Bay, sea perch is also a popular fish for recreational fishers. Two fishing vessels- 17th Daidenmaru (13 tons) and 18th Daidenmaru (13 tons) -are the round-haul (or purse seine) fishery boats owned by Kaiko Bussan. The fishery by kaiko Bussan also uses carrying vessels 51th Daidenmaru (19 tons) and 2nd Daidenmaru (19 tons). The area of fishing is shown in Figure 2.

Licensing and Permitting The fishery is licensed based either a Minister (of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries)-issued license or Governor (of each prefecture)-issued license depending on the size of fishing vessels and gear used. In Chiba Prefecture, vessels more than 15 tons west of the Nojimazaki Lighthouse in Boso Peninsula and more than 40 tons in the eastern part of Tokyo Bay require the “Large and Medium- sized” purse seine license issued by the Minister. Purse seine fishing operating by the Governor permits are categorized as small purse-seine (>5t) and medium size purse-seine (<5 t) (Nagano, Ayumu. Pers. Comm. 02/26/16). As operators are issued licenses a single license may include more than one vessel. In Chiba Prefecture, the medium-sized purse seine licences by the Governor have a maximum allowable vessel number per operating areas (three divided areas). The licenses need to be renewed every three years and depending on the area, and only those operators who have fishing records can be issued licenses. This reflects the measure for resource management by maintain the fishing efforts at the current level. However, the assessment team was not provided with any evidence that the number of permits is directly related to the status of the sea perch stock.

Chiba Prefecture currently has issued 6 fishing licenses for medium-sized purse-seine fisheries. They consist of 3 licenses in Funabqashi FCA (three pairs of vessels (6 in total) for twin vessel purse sein opration), 2 licenses in Futtsu FCA (again two pairs of vessels (4 in total), 1 licenses in Tateyama FCA (two vessels). For example, a specific fishery permit issued on 1 August, 2015 for one of client’s vessels (No 17 Daudenmaru) is valid until the end of July, 2018. The fishery ground allocated to all vessels in the UoA via Governor permit includes the Chiba Prefecture waters north of the line between the Suzaki lighthouse in Tateyama-city, Chiba and Jogasaki lighthouse in Miura-city, Kanagawa (Fishery Permit issued in 2015 Likewise, the other 5 licenses in Chiba Prefecture operate based on the same type of licence in the same waters. In addition, in order to avoid the conflict with other fishing method including pole & line fisheries and gill net fisheries, medium-sized purse seine fishing sets restricted fishing ground (Nagano. Ayumu, pers. Comm. 02/26/16).

In addition, any fisheries operating need to be a member of a regional fisheries cooperative, such as the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative, in order to be granted the fishing rights by governors. This same stock is targeted by fisheries belonging to three different prefectures bordering Tokyo Bay: Kanagawa, Tokyo and Chiba. Other fisheries with different gear types, especially trawl and gill net fishing, also target sea perch in Tokyo Bay. For example, trawl fisheries from the Association of Tokyo Inner Bay trawl fisheries (North of Tomizu Cape) has overlapped fishing ground with the fishery in scope.

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 28

SCS Global Services Report

Fishery Specific Management Plans and Regulations There is no governmental management plan specific to the Tokyo Bay sea perch fishery for either the trawl or purse seine fleet (besides governor’s licensing system). However, all of fisheries operating within Chiba prefecture water need to follow the Chiba Prefecture sea fishery adjustment rules (Chibaken kaimen gyogyou chousei kisoku). The Funabashi Fishery Cooperative does have an original management plan, which is based on Chiba Prefecture sea fishery adjustment rules, for all purse-seine operators belong to Funabashi Fishery Cooperative including: 1) [vessels] should not operates water shallower than 8 m (Article 43 of Chiba Prefecture sea fishery adjustment rules), 2) [vessels] should not operate near seaweed farms closer than 80 m (Funabashi FCA, pers. comm. 02/18/16).

Closures In addition to the above regulations based on the Chiba Prefecture regulations, The Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative has included voluntary closures in its management plan: All purse seine fisheries belonging to Funabashi Fishery Cooperative take all of February as suspension of the sea perch fishery. The rationales for this measurement are: 1) the fish moves far south (Funabashi locates the North of the Bay) therefore the fishing ground is far (more cost for oil), 2) February is the end of spawning season and the fish has not yet recover in terms of quality of flesh 3) due to reason 2, the market place is better in March.

This is the autonomous measure by the fishery under the management of Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative. In addition, the day before Sunday and national holidays, there is not fishing due to the market close on Sunday and holidays.

There are not restrictions on the size of fish that can be caught and retained, although some fishers report releasing juveniles.

So far, there are no explicit long-term or short-term objectives or research plans for the fishery and stock in scope of assessment. However, there is ongoing discussion regarding fishery suspension before the spawning season within the cooperative. According to Funabashi Fishery Cooperative (pers. comm. 02/18/16), there is an ongoing discussion regarding monitoring of sea perch landings. Currently the sales of sea perch is done through individual transactions (not through market auctions). This makes it difficult for the cooperative to track all the sea perch landings and transactions. There is not periodic internal or external review or audit of the Funabashi Fishery Cooperative management plan to date, and the assessment team is not aware of any requirements or plans for such a review.

Consultations and Stakeholder Outreach Regarding arrangements for on-going consultation with interest groups, no official consultation has been observed in the scoped fishery. There is some history of voluntary participation by the client in academic research, and the assessment team was told of a study recently done by a student of Tokyo University, that might result in management decisions for further fishing management and control. Tokyo Bay Northern purse seine operators’ cooperative holds some seminars and training sessions for members. The themes vary time to time including cooperative management but have not been specific to resource management so far.

As a non-fishery user in Tokyo Bay, some industries operating in Tokyo Bay shore sites may influence the fishery in terms of water quality. Also, fisheries need to coordinate with seaweed cultivators

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 29

SCS Global Services Report regarding shared fishing grounds, which is currently regulated via the Chiba Prefecture Regulation for no fishing within 80 m from seaweed farm.

Decision-making Processes In terms of decision making in the fishery, Tokyo Bay Northern purse seine operators’ cooperative (three members) is the direct management group of the fishery in scope. However, this cooperative mainly deals with the management of shared shipways and mooring posts. Funabashi Fishery Cooperative is the higher management organization for fisheries-specific regulation and has produced a fishery management plan for sea perch. However, the assessment team was not provided any information regarding decision-making processes in the fishery-specific management system.

Compliance and Enforcement Enforcement occurs primarily via mutual monitoring among fishers, although the Japanese Coast Guard has enforcement authority on the waters. The assessment team was not provided with information on specific sanctions set by either Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative or Tokyo Bay Northern purse seine operators’ cooperative levels, nor any records of enforcement by the Japanese Coast Guard.

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 30

SCS Global Services Report

4. Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Assessment methodologies used This assessment utilized version 2.0 (April 2015) of the Certification Requirements and version 2.0 of the reporting template. The assessment was completed by two external consultants: Dr. Jocelyn Drugan and Dr. Reiko Omoto.

Dr. Jocelyn Drugan- Ocean Outcomes, Principle 1 & 2 Jocelyn is a fisheries scientist with Ocean Outcomes, a global fishery improvement organization that provides technical support to fisheries aiming to improve their sustainability. She has has a B.S. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Yale University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Fisheries Science from the University of Washington. She was also a postdoctoral research associate at the NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. Jocelyn has co-authored MSC pre-assessments of two Russian salmon fisheries and assessed the sustainability of eleven fishery species in Japan, including mackerels, tuna, and Japanese flying squid. In addition to native proficiency in English, Jocelyn has language skills in Japanese and Mandarin Chinese.

Dr. Reiko Omoto, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Principle 3 Dr. Omoto is a project researcher at Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto, Japan and conducting research specialized in resource management certification schemes including organic certification for shrimp in Vietnam and MSC and ASC certification in Japan. She has B.A. and M.A. in Policy Studies from Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan and PhD in Geography from University of Waterloo, Canada. She is the former Fisheries Manager of MSC Japan for 3.5 years until March 2013 responsible to fishery outreach, funding applications, and document translations from/to English to/from Japanese.

4.2 Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment

Dr. Reiko Omoto conducted an on site visit on 18-19 February 2016 in Funabashi to meet the clients and other informants as listed below. Dr. Jocelyn Drugan attended meetings via conference line. The assessment team was further accompanied by client liaison, Shin-ichi Matsuura, of FiT (Fisheries Techino-services Co., Ltd.IT).

Table 5. Summary of onsite meeting on 18-19 Feburuary 2016.

Thursday February 18th From To Attendees Location Topics & Comments 1:00pm 2:15pm Mr. Nagano (Chiba Chiba Prefectural Governmental resource Prefecture) Government management measures for Mr. Ohno (Client / sea perch fishery) Dr. Omoto Dr. Drugan joined via conference call) 3:00pm 4:30pm Mr. Wanouchi (Funabashi Funabashi Fishery Principle 3: including fishery Fishery Cooperative) Cooperative specific management system, Mr. Matsumoto decision making processes, (Funabashi Fishery harvesting rules, and Cooperative) compliance and enforcement,

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 31

SCS Global Services Report

Mr. Ohno (Client) as well as market structure. Dr. Omoto Friday February 19th 9:30am 12:00pm Mr. Shoji (Tateyama Tateyama Fishery Principle 1 and 2 related Fishery Extension Office) Extension Office matters including stock Mr. Suzuki (MSC Japan) assessment data, gear types Mr. Ohno (Client) and the ecosystem. Dr. Omoto Dr. Drugan joined via conference call ) 3:00pm 4:00pm Mr. Ohno (Client) Kaiko Bussan Clarification on the SCS Assessment Team Office assessment application Mr. Suzuki (MSC Japan) submitted by the client. Dr. Omoto

4.3 Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment

In the Tokyo Bay sea perch fishery, the list of stakeholders includes but is not limited to:

1. Governmental offices: § Chiba Prefecture § Tateyama Fishery Extension Office 2. § Funabashi Fishery cooperative § Tokyo Bay Northern purse seine operators’ cooperative § Other Chiba Prefecture FCAs § Kanagawa FCAs (purse seine and other gear types) § Tokyo FCAs 3. NGOs: § MSC Japan § Ocean Outcomes § WWF Japan 4. University and Research Institutes: § University of Tokyo § National Institute for Environmental Studies

4.4 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries

There are currently two MSC certified fisheries in Japan:

1) the Japan Sea Danish seine fishery for flathead flounder located offshore of Kyoto prefecture and

2) the Japanese scallop hanging and seabed enhanced fisheries in Hokkaido prefecture.

There is also a Japanese pole and line skipjack and albacore tuna fishery undergoing MSC assessment, which is located off Shiogama City in Miyagi prefecture. None of these fisheries overlaps geographically with this sea perch fishery, nor are they catching the same target, primary or

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 32

SCS Global Services Report secondary species. Thus harmonization and assessment of cumulative impacts with other fisheries does not appear necessary for P1 or P2.

5. Traceability (issues relevant to Chain of Custody certification)

5.1 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further Chains of Custody In general, any product eligible to carry the MSC label must have traceability systems in place that can be verified to assure that product within the Unit of Certification is segregated and is not being mixed with product from outside the Unit of Certification, regardless of whether it comes from within the Unit of Assessment. This level of mixing would be a business concern to the client, who controls “who” (product from designated vessels) is allowed to use the MSC ecolabel. From the perspective of sustainability, any product from within the Unit of Assessment for a fishery holding a certificate, has had its impacts considered in scoring, and is therefore theoretically eligible to carry the label.

In full assessment the expert team members will determine the point at which the chain of custody begins. Where transhipment, processing at sea, or any risk of mixing occurs on the water, chain of custody processes will need to demonstrate that quality systems are in place, and capable of controlling mixing risks that could occur at sea. Mixing risks that may occur on the water could include substitution of look-alike species where these occur, or risk of mixing of the target species between product caught by vessels within the UoC with product caught by vessels outside the UoC – and most significantly from vessels outside the UoA. If product from vessels outside the UoA enter chains destined for use of the label, the full impacts of the fishery, while potentially encompassed in overall scores for the P1 target species, would not be appropriately considered for Principle 2 scoring. Chain of custody to the vessel level is also required if vessels use multiple gears, where one gear type is pursuing certification and another is not, but both land the species defined as the UoC: this presents a level of risk that would require hold-level traceability systems.

The fishing vessels included in the UoA employ a single gear method: purse seine, and the vessels do not fish for sea perch outside of the area and stock assessed within the UoA. Further, there is not considered to be look-alike species that may be mistaken for the species under assessment. There is no transhipment by vessels in the UoA. For these reasons, mixing at the point of capture and while at sea is considered low.

The client of the fishery is a wholesale dealer formed by two fishery enterprises. In many fishing ports in Japan, fish landed is sold through auction. However, sea perch caught and landed by the client’s fishery is all dealt by a single wholesale dealer, which makes the traceability of landings simpler. However, the wholesalers also purchase sea perch from other vessels with other fishing gears (i.e. trawl gear) in the same fishing area of Tokyo Bay. Therefore, there will need to be a traceability system in place at landing to minimize risk of mixing of product from vessels and gear not included in the Unit of Certification. As this point will also represent the first point of transfer of ownership, the assessment team preliminarily concludes that the certificate may extend to the point of landing, at which point the eligible product would enter the chain of custody, requiring a chain of custody certificate to be eligible for the ecolabel.

6. Preliminary evaluation of the fishery

6.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 33

SCS Global Services Report

The default assessment tree appears applicable for this fishery. The fishery does not have special characteristics that would warrant revising the tree.

6.1.1 Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF)

The RBF gives the assessment team a structured outline to assess the risk that a fishery is having an impact on species, habitats and the surrounding ecosystems in data-deficient environments that preclude use of the default assessment tree. According to MSC’s website (https://www.msc.org/about-us/standards/fisheries-standard/msc-risk-based-framework): “The RBF relies on consultation with fishery stakeholders through information-gathering workshops, as well as any data that is currently available from the fishery. There are four methods used to assess different aspects of the fishing activity: § Consequence Analysis (CA) - uses any available data to assess trends in the target stocks of a fishery § Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) - assesses how likely a stock is to recover when depleted, as well as how likely a species is to interact with fishing gear § Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA) - aims to identify how habitats may be affected by fishing activity § Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) - assesses the likelihood that a fishery has an effect on the wider ecosystem Each of these methods produces a score, which is then converted to allow comparison with the default assessment method.”

Most of the target and non-target species caught in this fishery would be considered data-deficient, and PIs 1.1.1, 2.2.1, and 2.3.1 would likely need to be scored with the RBF (see Table below). There may be sufficient habitat and ecosystem information to score PIs 2.4.1 without the RBF, but 2.5.1 (ecosystem impacts) will likewise likely require use of the RBF.

Performance indicator(s) Criteria Criteria Use RBF? met? Y/N Y/N

1.1.1 Stock status Stock status reference points are available, N Y derived from either analytical stock assessment or empirical approaches

2.1.1 Primary species Stock status reference points are available, Y for 2.1.1, N for outcome & 2.2.1 derived from either analytical stock assessment N for 2.2.1 2.1.1, Y Secondary species or empirical approaches for 2.2.1. outcome

2.3.1 ETP species Can the impact of the fishery in assessment on N Y outcome ETP species be analytically determined?

2.4.1 Habitats outcome Are both of the following applicable: (i) N Y Information on habitats encountered is available; and (ii) information of impact of fishery on habitats encountered is available?

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 34

SCS Global Services Report

2.5.1 Ecosystem outcome Is information available to support an analysis of N Y the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem?

6.2 Evaluation of the fishery

6.3 Summary of likely PI scoring levels

Key to likely scoring level in Table 6.3 Definition of scoring ranges for PI outcome estimates Shading to be used Information suggests fishery is not likely to meet the SG60 scoring Pre-condition issues. (<60) Information suggests fishery will reach SG60 but may not meet all Pass with Condition of the scoring issues at SG80. A condition may therefore be (60-79) needed. Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in Pass an unconditional pass for this PI. Fishery may meet one or more (≥80) scoring issues at SG100 level.

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 page 35

SCS Global Services Report

Table 6.3 Simplified Scoring sheet

RBF Likely Performance Principle Component PI required? scoring Rationale/ Key points Indicator (y/n) level The PSA suggested that Tokyo Bay sea perch stocks are low risk. 1.1.1 Stock status y ≥80 Outcome

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding -- n/a No score needed if RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1. Although the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative has some harvest measures in place, abundance monitoring is limited. Thus the 1.2.1 Harvest strategy -- <60 harvest measures may not be responsive to the state of the stock, and efficacy of those measures cannot be determined.

There are no specific harvest control rules or tools for sea perch stocks. Input controls exist, such as a licensing system and a 1 Harvest control Management 1.2.2 -- <60 voluntary fishery closure in February. However, these controls do rules and tools not reduce exploitation in response to stock depletion indicators.

Some information on stock structure and fleet composition is Information and 1.2.3 -- <60 available, but stock abundance and productivity are not monitored. monitoring

Assessment of This PI received a default score of 80 because RBF is expected to be 1.2.4 -- 80 stock status used to score PI 1.1.1.

Number of PIs less than 60 3

Pacific sardine and chub mackerel been identified as main primary species. Based on the stock assessments conducted in 2014, Pacific 2.1.1 Outcome N 60-79 sardine are highly likely to be above the PRI, whereas chub mackerel are likely not above PRI. 2 Primary Species Main and minor primary species include Japanese sardine, chub mackerel, Japanese jack mackerel, and Japanese amberjack. 2.1.2 Management -- <60 Management measures for maintaining stocks above PRI appear minimal and may be needed for chub mackerel.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 36 of 4

SCS Global Services Report

RBF Likely Performance Principle Component PI required? scoring Rationale/ Key points Indicator (y/n) level Quantitative information is available and adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on main and minor primary species. This information can Quantitative information is available and adequate 2.1.3 Information -- ≥80 to assess the impact of the UoA on main and minor primary species. This information can also be used to support a management strategy for primary species. Main secondary species include dotted gizzard shad. Abundances of gizzard shad are not monitored, so we conducted a PSA, which 2.2.1 Outcome y 60-79 suggested that gizzard shad are at medium risk.

There are no measures in place expected to maintain or not hinder Secondary rebuilding of main secondary species. Such measures may be 2.2.2 Management -- <60 species necessary, especially for gizzard shad.

Information appears adequate for conducting a PSA but not necessarily for supporting a partial or full management strategy for 2.2.3 Information -- 60-79 main secondary species.

No ETP species within Tokyo Bay were identified by the fishery client or by experts consulted during the on-site visits. UoA effects 2.3.1 Outcome N 60-79 are likely within limits set for ETP species, but there is some uncertainty.

Fishermen attempt to release incidentally caught marine mammals ETP species or turtles, but there are no documented measures for ensuring that 2.3.2 Management -- <60 the fishery does not hinder ETP species recovery.

There is no system in place for collecting information on fishery encounters with ETP species. Encounters are reportedly minimal, 2.3.3 Information -- <60 but confirmation is needed.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 37 of 4

SCS Global Services Report

RBF Likely Performance Principle Component PI required? scoring Rationale/ Key points Indicator (y/n) level We conducted a CSA using the limited information available, and 2.4.1 Outcome Y 60-79 the results suggested that the UoA has medium risk of fishing gear impacts on habitat.

There are some measures in place for regulating habitat impacts. 2.4.2 Management -- 60-79 They are considered likely to work, but habitat impacts are not Habitats monitored. The client mentioned that much of the bottom habitat in fished areas is soft and sandy, but qualitative information was not 2.4.3 Information -- <60 adequate to estimate types and distributions of main habitats, or consequence and spatial attributes of main habitats.

Information on ecosystem impacts is limited, so a SICA will likely 2.5.1 Outcome y -- need to be conducted in a full assessment. The SICA will determine the PI score. There are no management measures that specifically take fishery impacts on the ecosystem into account, though harvest-related 2.5.2 Management -- 60-79 Ecosystem measures exist. These measures are limited in scope and may not effectively limit negative ecosystem impacts. Information is adequate to broadly understand key ecosystem elements, but impacts from the UoA on these elements have not 2.5.3 Information -- 60-79 been investigated in detail. There does not appear to be adequate monitoring in place for detecting increases in ecosystem risk level.

Number of PIs less than 60: 5

3.1.1 Legal and The minimum legal management system is in place. However the customary -- 60-79 management system do not incorporate legal disputes solution in framework clear terms specific to the fishery in scope. Governance & 3.1.2 Consultation, Organizations and individuals involved in the management process 3 policy roles and have been identified and functions and roles seem to be generally responsibilities -- 60-79 understood. No systematic consultation process has been practiced. Occasional individual consultation with related management bodies and researchers can be observed.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 38 of 4

SCS Global Services Report

RBF Likely Performance Principle Component PI required? scoring Rationale/ Key points Indicator (y/n) level 3.1.3 Long term MAFF has been promoting the sustainable resource management objectives on their website. Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative explicitly expresses the need of appropriate resource management with -- 60-79 specific regulations in its Funabashi Fishery Cooperative’s resource management plan. However, these statements are not explicitly and cohesively aligned with MSC Principles 1 and 2. 3.2.1 Fishery specific Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative’s resource management include objectives the statement about resource management followed by specific -- 60-79 regulations, but there are not explicit objectives aligned with MSC Principles 1 and 2. 3.2.2 Decision making There are general and customary decision-making processes in processes place however those are not explicit or specific to the fishery. The -- 60-79 assessment team did not see evidence of decision-making aligned Fishery specific with the precautionary principle or explanation of management management actions. system 3.2.3 Compliance and There is no monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms enforcement ensure the management measures in the fishery are enforced and -- <60 complied with. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance are not set and there is no evidence that they are applied. 3.2.4 Management There are no formal mechanisms in place to evaluate fishery- performance -- 60-79 specific management system. evaluation

Number of PIs less than 60: 1

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 39 of 4

SCS Global Services Report

References

Akimoto, S. 2013. Catch characteristics of the commercial fisheries in the Inner Part of Tokyo Bay. In Fisheries and oceanography in Tokyo Bay by the National Research Institute of Fisheries Science and National Research Institute of Aquaculture. (In Japanese.)

Akiyama, Y.B., Iseri, E. Okada, T. 2014. Classification of fishes in an inner bay based on their habitat features and lifestyles.

Association for Promotion of National Rich Oceans (), affiliated with the Japanese Fisheries Agency. 2015. Report on ecological knowledge of the developmental stage of the main target organisms. Posted August 13, 2015. http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/gyoko_gyozyo/g_thema/pdf/sub40b.pdf (In Japanese.)

Chiba Fisheries Promotion Foundation. 2015. http://www.chisuikou.jp/ (In Japanese.)

Chiba Prefecture, Chiba Prefecture sea fishery adjustment rule (Chibaken Kimen Gyogyo Chousei Kisoku). https://www.pref.chiba.lg.jp/suisan/tetsuzuki/450/index4.html. Retrieved on 22 March, 2016. (In Japanese)

The Fishery Permit issued on 1 August, 2015 by the Chiba Prefecture Governor Mr. Suzuki.

Encyclopedia of Japan. 2012. "Tokyo Bay.” Tokyo: Shogakukan. 2012.

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2015.FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, (10/2015)

Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative. 2011. Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative Resource Management Plan. (In Japanese.)

Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative. Cooperative member organizations in Annual Report 2015. (In Japanese)

Ishii, M. and Masato, K. 2005. Relationship between oxygen-deficient water mass and catching point of sea bass Lateolabrax japonicus of small scale trawl in Tokyo Bay. Bulletin of Chiba Prefectural Fisheries Research Center, 4: 7-15. (In Japanese.)

Japanese Fisheries Resource Conservation Association. 1998. Data book on rare wild aquatic organisms of Japan. (In Japanese.) http://rnavi.ndl.go.jp/mokuji_html/000002727294.html

Kato, M., and Ikegami, N. 2004. Recent trend of stock and distribution of fishing ground of small scale trawl for Japanese Sea Bass Lateolabrax japonicus (CUVIER) in Tokyo Bay. Bulletin of Chiba Prefectural Fisheries Research Center, 3: 17-30. (In Japanese.)

Kawabata, A., Watanabe, C., Uemura, Y., Akamine, T., and Mito, K. 2014a. Stock assessment of the Pacific Ocean stock of Japanese sardine. (In Japanese.)

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 40 of 38

SCS Global Services Report http://abchan.fra.go.jp/digests26/details/2601.pdf

Kawabata, J., C. Watanabe, Y. Uemura, K. Nashita, and K. Mito. 2014b. Stock assessment of the Pacific Ocean stock of blue mackerel. (In Japanese.) http://abchan.fra.go.jp/digests26/details/2605.pdf

Kodama, K. 2014. Effects of poor oxygen water mass on the bottom dwelling fish and shellfish of Tokyo Bay. National Institute for Environmental Studies. (In Japanese.) https://www.nies.go.jp/risk/mei/mei005_5.html

Makino, M. 2013. The analysis on Japanese Fisheries- the fisheries management and ecosystem conservation (Nihon Gyogyo no Seido Bunseki), FRA (Fisheries Research Agency), Tokyo. (In Japanese)

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries. 2008. Sea perch recreational harvest amount by prefecture, 2008. (In Japanese.)

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries. http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/press/sigen/151030.html, retrieved 22 March, 2016.

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (b). http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/wpaper/h22_h/trend/1/t1_1.html, retrieved 24 March, 2016.

Ministry of the Environment. 2015. State of Japan's Environment at a Glance: Extinct and Endangered Species Listed in the Red Data Book. https://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/biodiv/reddata.html

Ministry of the Environment. 2016. Wildlife Protection System and Hunting Law: Wildlife Conservation in Japan. https://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/biodiv/law.html

National Institute for Environmental Studies. 2015. Results summary of 2015 surveys of bottom dwelling fish species and environmental conditions in Tokyo Bay, and research progress. (In Japanese.)

Ocean Policy Research Foundation. 2012. Research on the application of bio-logging on comprehensive coastal zone management. (In Japanese.)

Ozaki, M., and Shoji, N. 2001. Estimates of the total volume of Japanese sea bass caught by recreational party boats in Tokyo Bay. Bulletin of Chiba Prefectural Fisheries Experimental Station: 57: 173-179. (In Japanese.)

Shoji, N., Sato, K., Ozaki, M. Distribution and utilization of the stock. In Temperate bass and biodiversity: new perspective for fisheries biology. Eds. M. Tanaka and I. Kinoshita. (In Japanese.)

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

1 Annex 1. Pre-assessment evaluation tables

1.1 Principle 1

Component Outcome

PI 1.1.1- Stock The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability status of recruitment overfishing

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Stock status It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of relative to is above the point stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is recruitment where recruitment above the PRI. impairment would be impaired (PRI). b. Stock status The stock is at or There is a high degree of in relation to fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock has achievement consistent with MSY. been fluctuating around a of Maximum level consistent with MSY Sustainable or has been above this Yield (MSY) level over recent years. Justification/Rationale There are no estimates for PRI or MSY indicators for Tokyo Bay sea perch stocks, nor have abundances been consistently monitored. Thus we used the RBF and conducted a PSA, which suggested that stock status outcome is low risk (score of ≥80).

RBF Required? ü Likely Scoring Level (P/O/) (pass/pass with Pass with condition condition/pre-condition)

Component Outcome

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified Stock timeframe. Rebuilding

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 42 of 38

SCS Global Services Report a. Rebuilding A rebuilding timeframe The shortest practicable timeframes is specified for the stock rebuilding timeframe is that is the shorter of 20 specified which does not years or 2 times its exceed one generation generation time. For time for the depleted cases where 5 stock. generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. b. Rebuilding Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence evaluation determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding likely based on simulation stocks, or it is highly likely the stock within the modelling, exploitation based on simulation specified timeframe. rates or previous modelling, exploitation performance that they will rates or previous be able to rebuild the stock performance that they will within the specified be able to rebuild the stock timeframe. within the specified timeframe. Justification/Rationale This PI was not scored because the RBF was used to score PI 1.1.1.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with N/A (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Harvest strategy (management)

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Harvest strategy

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. Harvest The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is strategy design expected to achieve responsive to the state of responsive to the state of stock management the stock and the elements the stock and is designed objectives reflected in of the harvest strategy to achieve stock PI 1.1.1 SG80. work together towards management objectives achieving stock reflected in the target and management objectives limit reference points. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 43 of 38

SCS Global Services Report b. Harvest The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the strategy likely to work based not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been evaluation on prior experience or but evidence exists that it fully evaluated and plausible argument. is achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. c. Harvest Monitoring is in place strategy that is expected to monitoring determine whether the harvest strategy is working. d. Harvest The harvest strategy is strategy review periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. e. Shark finning It is likely that shark It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of finning is not taking finning is not taking place certainty that shark finning place is not taking place. f. Review of There has been a There is a regular review of There is a biannual review alternative review of the potential the potential effectiveness of the potential measures effectiveness and and practicality of effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to practicality of alternative alternative measures minimise UoA related measures to minimise UoA to minimise UoA mortality of unwanted related mortality of related mortality of catch of the target stock unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the and they are implemented target stock, and they are target stock. as appropriate. implemented, as appropriate. Justification/Rationale

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 44 of 38

SCS Global Services Report a. The fishery client’s voluntary harvest strategy involves a one month fishery closure during the sea perch spawning season (in February) and release of juveniles less than 20 cm in length or less than 200 g in weight. This strategy is expected to meet stock management objectives but is not responsive to quantitative stock status indicators. b. The strategy is likely to help limit fishing impacts on the stock, but there are no specific objectives to evaluate it against. c. Monitoring is not in place to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Although catches are tracked, stock abundance is not. d. The Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative periodically reviews its management plan. e. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. f. There has not been a review of alternative measures.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with pre-condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Harvest strategy

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Harvest control rules and tools

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. HCRs design Generally understood Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to and HCRs are in place or place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating application available that are exploitation rate is reduced at or above a target level expected to reduce the as the PRI is approached, consistent with MSY, or exploitation rate as the are expected to keep the another more appropriate point of recruitment stock fluctuating around a level taking into account impairment (PRI) is target level consistent with the ecological role of the approached. (or above) MSY, or for key stock, most of the time. LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 45 of 38

SCS Global Services Report b. HCRs The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a robustness to robust to the main wide range of uncertainties uncertainty uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. c. HCRs There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows evaluation that tools used or indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are available to implement use are appropriate and effective in achieving the HCRs are appropriate effective in achieving the exploitation levels required and effective in exploitation levels required under the HCRs. controlling exploitation. under the HCRs. Justification/Rationale a, b. There are no specific HCRs or tools for sea perch stocks. Input controls exist, such as a licensing system and a voluntary fishery closure in February. However, these controls do not reduce exploitation in response to stock depletion indicators. c. There is some evidence that the fishery closure helps reduce exploitation, because there are no catches in February. Records are not kept on juvenile releases.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pre-condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Harvest strategy

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Information / monitoring

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 46 of 38

SCS Global Services Report a. Range of Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information information related to information related to information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data are available to abundance, UoA removals strategy. support the harvest and other information such strategy. as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available. b. Monitoring Stock abundance and Stock abundance and UoA All information required by UoA removals are removals are regularly the harvest control rule is monitored and at least monitored at a level of monitored with high one indicator is accuracy and coverage frequency and a high available and monitored consistent with the degree of certainty, and with sufficient harvest control rule, and there is a good frequency to support one or more indicators are understanding of the the harvest control rule. available and monitored inherent uncertainties in with sufficient frequency to the information [data] and support the harvest control the robustness of rule. assessment and management to this uncertainty. c. Comprehe- There is good information nsiveness of on all other fishery information removals from the stock.

Justification/Rationale a. Some information on stock structure and fleet composition is available, but stock productivity is not monitored. b. Stock abundance is not monitored, although UoA removals are. c. Information on other fishery removals appears good, with the exception of recreational fishery removals. However, recreational fishery removals are expected to be a small proportion of total removals (< 5%; MAFF 2008). RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pre-condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 47 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

Component Harvest Strategy

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status. Assessment of stock status

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 a. The assessment is The assessment takes into Appropriatene appropriate for the stock account the major features ss of and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of assessment to rule. the species and the nature stock under of the UoA. consideration b. Assessment The assessment The assessment estimates approach estimates stock status stock status relative to relative to generic reference points that are reference points appropriate to the stock appropriate to species and can be estimated. category. c. Uncertainty The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into in the identifies major sources uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is assessment of uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. d. Evaluation The assessment has been of assessment tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. e. Peer review The assessment of stock The assessment has been of assessment status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Justification/Rationale This PI received a default score of 80 because RBF is expected to be used to score PI 1.1.1, but note that no stock assessment has been conducted within at least the past ten years.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pass (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 48 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

1.2 Principle 2

Component Primary species (outcome)

PI 2.1.1 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment Outcome would be impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they Status are below the PRI.

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) Main primary species Main primary species are There is a high degree of Main primary are likely to be above highly likely to be above certainty that main species stock the PRI the PRI primary species are above status OR OR PRI and are fluctuating If the species is below If the species is below the around a level consistent the PRI. the UoA has PRI, there is either with MSY. measures in place that evidence of recovery or a are expected to ensure demonstrably effective that the UoA does not strategy in place between hinder recovery and all MSC UoAs which rebuilding categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. (b) For minor species that are Minor primary below the PRI, there is species stock evidence that the UoA status does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. Justification/Rationale a. Japanese sardine and chub mackerel were identified as main primary species. Based on the most recent stock assessments available, which were conducted in 2014, sardine are highly likely to be above the PRI (Blim). However, chub mackerel do not appear to be above the PRI.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? RBF not necessary (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 49 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

Component Primary species (management)

PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding Primary of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as species appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. management strategy

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place Management place for the UoA, if in place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing strategy in necessary, that are necessary, that is expected main and minor primary place expected to maintain or to maintain or to not species. to not hinder rebuilding hinder rebuilding of the of the main primary main primary species at/to species at/to levels levels which are highly which are likely to likely to be above the point above the point where where recruitment would recruitment would be be impaired. impaired. (b) The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high Management considered likely to basis for confidence that confidence that the partial strategy work, based on the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, evaluation plausible argument strategy will work, based based on information (e.g., general on some information directly about the fishery experience, theory or directly about the fishery and/or species involved. comparison with similar and/or species involved. fisheries/species). (c) There is some evidence There is clear evidence that Management that the measures/partial the partial strategy strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implementati implemented successfully. implemented successfully on and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). (d) It is likely that shark It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of Shark finning finning is not taking finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning place. is not taking place

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 50 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

(e) There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review Review of potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness of the potential alternative and practicality of and practicality of effectiveness and measures alternative measures to alternative measures to practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related measures to minimise UoA- mortality of unwanted mortality of unwanted related mortality of catch of main primary catch of main primary unwanted catch of all species. species and they are primary species, and they implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Justification/Rationale a. Main and minor primary species include Japanese sardine, chub mackerel, Japanese jack mackerel, and Japanese amberjack. An allowable biological catch (ABC) is estimated for stocks of all of these species. The ABC is used to determine a total allowable catch (TAC) for sardine, chub mackerel, and jack mackerel, but not for amberjack. TAC may be considered a management measure for maintaining stocks above PRI, and such measures are necessary for stocks such as Pacific Ocean chub mackerel. b, c. It is unclear whether the TAC measure is working or likely to work, because catch limits do not appear to be strictly enforced. Thus far there is no evidence of successful implementation. d. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. e. We assume there is not any unwanted catch of main primary species, because there was no mention of releasing these species in the fishery’s management plan.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pre-condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Primary species (information)

PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine Primary the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species species information

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 51 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

(a) Qualitative information Some quantitative Quantitative information is Information is adequate to estimate information is available available and is adequate adequacy for the impact of the UoA and is adequate to assess to assess with a high assessment of on the main primary the impact of the UoA on degree of certainty the impact on species with respect to the main primary species impact of the UoA on main main species status. with respect to status. primary species with respect to status. OR OR

If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information Some quantitative is adequate to estimate information is adequate to productivity and assess productivity and susceptibility attributes susceptibility attributes for for main primary main primary species. species. (b) Some quantitative Information information is adequate to adequacy for estimate the impact of the assessment of UoA on minor primary impact on species with respect to minor species status. (c) Information is adequate Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information to support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to adequacy for manage main primary to manage main Primary manage all primary management species. species. species, and evaluate with strategy a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Justification/Rationale a. Quantitative information is available and adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on main primary species, though catch data are not independently verified. Fishers typically monitor catches of commercially important species, while MAFF tracks Japanese commercial fishery catches at a broader level. b. Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species, because catches are tracked. c. Information is adequate to support a strategy to manage all primary species and evaluate whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 52 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pass (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Secondary species (outcome)

PI 2.2.1 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit and Secondary does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based species limit. outcome

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 53 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

(a) Main Secondary species Main secondary species are There is a high degree of Main are likely to be within highly likely to be above certainty that main secondary biologically based limits. biologically based limits secondary species are species stock within biologically based status limits. OR OR

If below biologically If below biologically based based limits, there are limits, there is either measures in place evidence of recovery or a expected to ensure that demonstrably effective the UoA does not partial strategy in place hinder recovery and such that the UoA does not rebuilding. hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary 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 also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. (b) For minor species that are Minor below biologically based secondary limits’, there is evidence species stock that the UoA does not status hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species

Justification/Rationale Main secondary species include dotted gizzard shad. Abundances of gizzard shad are not monitored, so we conducted a PSA, which suggested that gizzard shad are at medium risk. One concern is that juvenile gizzard shad are targeted due to their high commercial value relative to adult gizzard shad.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 54 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Secondary species (management)

PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to Secondary maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly species reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of management unwanted catch. strategy

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place Management place, if necessary, in place, if necessary, for for the UoA for managing strategy in which are expected to the UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary place maintain or not hinder maintain or not hinder species. rebuilding of main rebuilding of main secondary species at/to secondary species at/to levels which are highly levels which are highly likely to be within likely to be within biologically based limits biologically based limits or or to ensure that the to ensure that the UoA UoA does not hinder does not hinder their their recovery. recovery. (b) The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high Management considered likely to basis for confidence that confidence that the partial strategy work, based on the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, evaluation plausible argument (e.g. strategy will work, based based on information general experience, on some information directly about the UoA theory or comparison directly about the UoA and/or species involved. with similar and/or species involved. UoAs/species). (c) There is some evidence There is clear evidence that Management that the measures/partial the partial strategy strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implementati implemented successfully. implemented successfully on and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). (d) It is likely that shark It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of Shark finning finning is not taking finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning place. is not taking place.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 55 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

(e) There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review Review of potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness of the potential alternative and practicality of and practicality of effectiveness and measures alternative measures to alternative measures to practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related measures to minimise UoA- mortality of unwanted mortality of unwanted related mortality of catch of main secondary catch of main secondary unwanted catch of all species. species and they are secondary species, and implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Justification/Rationale a b, c. There are no measures in place expected to maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main secondary species. Such measures may be necessary, especially for gizzard shad, because stock status is uncertain, and juveniles are targeted. d. It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. e. There is no review of alternative measures, but we assumed there is not any unwanted catch of main secondary species. RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pre-condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Secondary species (information)

PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to Secondary determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to species manage secondary species. information

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 56 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

(a) Qualitative information Some quantitative Quantitative information is Information is adequate to estimate information is available available and adequate to adequacy for the impact of the UoA and adequate to assess the assess with a high degree assessment of on the main secondary impact of the UoA on main of certainty the impact of impact on species with respect to secondary species with the UoA on main main species status. respect to status. secondary species with respect to status. OR OR

If RBF is used to score If RBF is used to score PI PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: 2.2.1 for the UoA: Some quantitative Qualitative information information is adequate to is adequate to estimate assess productivity and productivity and susceptibility attributes for susceptibility attributes main secondary species. for main secondary species. (b) Some quantitative Information information is adequate to adequacy for estimate the impact of the assessment of UoA on minor secondary impact on species with respect to minor status secondary species (c) Information is adequate Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information to support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to adequacy for manage main secondary to manage main secondary manage all secondary management species. species. species, and evaluate with strategy a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Justification/Rationale a. Information appears adequate for estimating productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary species, although additional quantitative information (e.g. average maximum age, fecundity, and availability) would be useful to have. b. Some quantitative information on catches of minor secondary species is collected, which would be adequate for estimating impact of the UoA on those species. c. Information appears adequate for supporting management measures relating to main secondary species but not necessarily a partial strategy. Information that is consistently collected includes catches and fishing periods.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 57 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component ETP species (outcome)

PI 2.3.1 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP ETP species species outcome The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or Effects of the international international requirements international requirements UoA on requirements set limits set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, population/st for ETP species, the the combined effects of there is a high degree of ock within effects of the UoA on the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the national or the population/stock population/stock are combined effects of the international are known and likely to known and highly likely to MSC UoAs are within these limits, where be within these limits. be within these limits. limits. applicable (b) Known direct effects of Known direct effects of the There is a high degree of Direct effects the UoA are likely to not UoA are highly likely to not confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP hinder recovery of ETP no significant detrimental species. species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. (c) Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of Indirect considered and are confidence that there are effects thought to be highly likely no significant detrimental to not create unacceptable indirect effects of the impacts. fishery on ETP species. Justification/Rationale a. No ETP species within Tokyo Bay were identified by the fishery client or by experts consulted during the on-site visits. Records of incidental catches are not systematically kept, but birds are reportedly caught once or twice a year, and dolphins or whales enter the nets on rare occasions. One time a sea turtle was caught in the net. No information about limits for ETP species was provided. b. Based on this anecdotal information, the UoA is not a substantial contributor to ETP species mortality and is likely to not hinder ETP species recovery. c. Indirect effects on ETP species have not been considered.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 58 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component ETP species (management)

PI 2.3.2 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: ETP species • meet national and international requirements; management • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. strategy

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) There are measures in There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive Management place that minimise the for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for strategy in UoA-related mortality impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact place of ETP species, and are including measures to on ETP species, including (national and expected to be highly minimise mortality, which measures to minimise international likely to achieve is designed to be highly mortality, which is requirements) national and likely to achieve national designed to achieve above international and international national and international requirements for the requirements for the requirements for the protection of ETP protection of ETP species. protection of ETP species. species. (b) There are measures in There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive Management place that are expected that is expected to ensure strategy in place for strategy in to ensure the UoA does the UoA does not hinder managing ETP species, to place not hinder the recovery the recovery of ETP ensure the UoA does not (alternative) of ETP species. species. hinder the recovery of ETP species (c) The measures are There is an objective basis The Management considered likely to for confidence that the strategy/comprehensive strategy work, based on measures/strategy will strategy is mainly based on evaluation plausible argument work, based on information directly about (e.g., general information directly about the fishery and/or species experience, theory or the fishery and/or the involved, and a comparison with similar species involved. quantitative analysis fisheries/species). supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 59 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

(d) There is some evidence There is clear evidence Management that the measures/strategy that the strategy is being implemented strategy/comprehensive implementati successfully. strategy is being on implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). (e) There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review Review of potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness of the potential alternative and practicality of and practicality of effectiveness and measures to alternative measures to alternative measures to practicality of alternative minimize minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related measures to minimise UoA- mortality of mortality of ETP species. mortality of ETP species related mortality ETP ETP species and they are implemented species, and they are as appropriate. implemented, as appropriate. Justification/Rationale a, b. Anecdotally, fishers release marine mammals or turtles that are incidentally caught, which will help minimise UoA mortality of ETP species. However, there are no documented management measures related to ETP species and not enough information to know whether measures are necessary. c, d. There are no documented management measures in place, so these SGs do not pass the 60 level. That said, releasing ETP species is likely to work based on plausible argument, but there is no objective basis for confidence because records on encounters with ETP species are not kept. e. There is no review of alternative measures for minimizing UoA-related mortality of ETP species, but it is not clear whether they are needed.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pre-condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component ETP species (information)

PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species ETP species, including: information • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and

Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 60 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) Qualitative information Some quantitative Quantitative information is Information is adequate to estimate information is adequate to available to assess with a adequacy for the UoA related assess the UoA related high degree of certainty assessment of mortality on ETP mortality and impact and the magnitude of UoA- impacts species. to determine whether the related impacts, UoA may be a threat to mortalities and injuries protection and recovery of and the consequences for OR the ETP species. the status of ETP species.

If RBF is used to score PI OR 2.3.1 for the UoA:

If RBF is used to score PI Qualitative information 2.3.1 for the UoA: is adequate to estimate productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes information is adequate to for ETP species. assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. (b) Information is adequate Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information to support measures to measure trends and support a comprehensive adequacy for manage the impacts on support a strategy to strategy to manage management ETP species. manage impacts on ETP impacts, minimize strategy species. mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Justification/Rationale a. We did not estimate UoA mortality on ETP species or use the RBF because no ETP species were identified. If species were identified, however, we expect that qualitative but not quantitative information would be available for estimating UoA impacts. b. There is no system in place for collecting information on interactions with ETP species. Based on hearsay, the fishery rarely encounters ETP species. However, if encounters happen, information would not be adequate for supporting measures for managing ETP species impacts. We scored this PI erring on the side of caution.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O (pass/pass with Pre-condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 61 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

Component Habitats outcome

PI 2.4.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and Outcome function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) status responsible for fisheries management.

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the Commonly reduce structure and to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to encountered function of the function of the commonly reduce structure and habitat status commonly encountered encountered habitats to a function of the commonly habitats to a point point where there would encountered habitats to a where there would be be serious or irreversible point where there would serious or irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible harm. harm. (b) The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the VME habitat reduce structure and to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to status function of the VME function of the VME reduce structure and habitats to a point habitats to a point where function of the VME where there would be there would be serious or habitats to a point where serious or irreversible irreversible harm. there would be serious or harm. irreversible harm.

(c) There is evidence that the Minor habitat UoA is highly unlikely to status reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Justification/Rationale Little quantitative information was provided on habitats in fished areas, so the assessment team conducted a CSA to score this PI. The results suggested that the fishery likely has medium habitat impacts.

Round haul nets sometimes contact the seafloor, which is mostly sandy but may also be muddy or rocky. This gear type is not expected to be very damaging to habitat, but additional information on fished habitats and gear impacts will be needed for a full assessment.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? P (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Habitats management strategy

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 62 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk Management of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. strategy

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

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

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 63 of 38

SCS Global Services Report a. There are some measures in place for regulating habitat impacts. Nets are not operated in water depths of less than 8 m, nor are they used within 80 m of nori seaweed cultivation areas (Ohno, Kazuhiko, pers. comm., 02/19/2016). b. These measures are considered likely to work, but there is no objective basis for confidence in their efficacy because habitat impacts are not monitored. c. There is no quantitative evidence that the measures are being successfully implemented, though it should be possible to obtain such evidence from the fishers because they typically keep records on the areas they fish. d. It is not clear whether there are management requirements to protect VMEs, but again, fishing location records may be used as qualitative evidence of compliance, if relevant.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Habitats information

PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and Information the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. monitoring

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 64 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

(a) The types and The nature, distribution The distribution of all Information distribution of the main and vulnerability of the habitats is known over quality habitats are broadly main habitats in the UoA their range, with particular understood. area are known at a level attention to the occurrence of detail relevant to the of vulnerable habitats. scale and intensity of the OR UoA.

If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA:

If CSA is used to score PI Qualitative information 2.4.1 for the UoA: is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main Some quantitative habitats. information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats (b) Information is adequate Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the Information to broadly understand allow for identification of gear on all habitats have adequacy for the nature of the main the main impacts of the been quantified fully. assessment of impacts of gear use on UoA on the main habitats, impacts the main habitats, and there is reliable including spatial overlap information on the spatial of habitat with fishing extent of interaction and gear. on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. OR OR If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative the consequence and information is available spatial attributes of the and is adequate to main habitats. estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats (c) Adequate information Changes in habitat Monitoring continues to be collected distributions over time are to detect any increase in measured. risk to the main habitats.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 65 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

Justification/Rationale a. Little information was provided on types and distributions of main habitat types in Tokyo Bay. The client mentioned that much of the bottom habitat in fished areas is soft and sandy, but qualitative information was not adequate to estimate types and distributions of main habitats. b. Qualitative information was not adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of main habitats. c. There does not appear to be regular monitoring of risk to habitats.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O (pass/pass with Pre-condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Ecosystem outcome

PI 2.5.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of Outcome ecosystem structure and function.. status

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the Ecosystem disrupt the key to disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to status elements underlying underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements ecosystem structure structure and function to a underlying ecosystem and function to a point point where there would structure and function to a where there would be a be a serious or irreversible point where there would serious or irreversible harm. be a serious or irreversible harm. harm. Justification/Rationale a. The main ecosystem impact this fishery might have is overharvest of main target species. The assessment team determined that there was insufficient information to score this PI without using the RBF. A SICA should be conducted in a full assessment to obtain the score. RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? P (pass/pass with N/A (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Ecosystem management strategy

PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or Management irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function strategy

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 66 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy that Management place, if necessary in place, if necessary, consists of a plan, in place strategy in which take into account which takes into account which contains measures place the potential impacts of available information and to address all main impacts the fishery on key is expected to restrain of the UoA on the elements of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem, and at least ecosystem. ecosystem so as to achieve some of these measures the Ecosystem Outcome 80 are in place. level of performance. (b) The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high Management considered likely to basis for confidence that confidence that the partial strategy work, based on the measures/partial strategy/strategy will work, evaluation plausible argument strategy will work, based based on information (e.g., general on some information directly about the UoA experience, theory or directly about the UoA and/or ecosystem involved comparison with similar and/or the ecosystem fisheries/ ecosystems). involved (c) There is some evidence There is clear evidence that Management that the measures/partial the partial strategy strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implementati implemented successfully. implemented successfully on and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Justification/Rationale a. There are no management measures that specifically take fishery impacts on the ecosystem into account, but there are some measures relating to harvest. b. These measures may help the fishery avoid overharvest, but they are limited in scope. Thus we cannot be confident of their efficacy in limiting negative ecosystem impacts. c. There is some evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully, because Tokyo Bay sea perch stocks do not appear depleted currently. RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Ecosystem information

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 67 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Information monitoring

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) Information is adequate Information is adequate to Information to identify the key broadly understand the key quality elements of the elements of the ecosystem. ecosystem. (b) Main impacts of the Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions between Investigation UoA on these key on these key ecosystem the UoA and these of UoA ecosystem elements can elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can be impacts be inferred from from existing information, inferred from existing existing information, and some have been information, and have but have not been investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. (c) The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on Understandin components (i.e., P1 target P1 target species, primary, g of species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species component and ETP species and and Habitats are identified functions Habitats) in the ecosystem and the main functions of are known. these components in the ecosystem are understood. (d) Adequate information is Adequate information is Information available on the impacts of available on the impacts of relevance the UoA on these the UoA on the components to allow some components and elements of the main consequences to allow the main for the ecosystem to be consequences for the inferred. ecosystem to be inferred. (e) Adequate data continue to Information is adequate to Monitoring be collected to detect any support the development increase in risk level. of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Justification/Rationale

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 68 of 38

SCS Global Services Report a. Academic and government scientists (e.g. at the National Institute of Environmental Research) have conducted research on the Tokyo Bay ecosystem, and information is adequate to broadly understand key ecosystem elements. b. Main impacts from the UoA on these elements can be inferred but have not been investigated in detail. c. Main functions of ecosystem components are known. d. Information from research studies is available to allow for some inference of UoA impacts on the ecosystem. e. There does not appear to be adequate monitoring in place for detecting increases in ecosystem risk level.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

1.3 Principle 3

Component Governance and Policy

PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary Legal and/or framework which ensures that it: customary framework • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective Compatibility national legal system national legal system and national legal system and of laws or and a framework for organised and effective binding procedures standards cooperation with other cooperation with other governing cooperation with effective parties, where parties, where necessary, with other parties which management necessary, to deliver to deliver management delivers management management outcomes outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with consistent with MSC MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 69 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

(b) The management The management system The management system Resolution of system incorporates or incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject disputes is subject by law to a by law to a transparent by law to a transparent mechanism for the mechanism for the mechanism for the resolution of legal resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes disputes arising within which is considered to be that is appropriate to the the system. effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and appropriate to the context proven to be effective. of the UoA. (c) The management The management system The management system Respect for system has a has a mechanism to has a mechanism to rights mechanism to generally observe the legal rights formally commit to the respect the legal rights created explicitly or legal rights created created explicitly or established by custom of explicitly or established by established by custom people dependent on custom of people of people dependent on fishing for food or dependent on fishing for fishing for food or livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a livelihood in a manner consistent with the manner consistent with the consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Justification/Rationale a) There is national legal fishery licensing system and fishery management system as fisheries cooperatives which enable cooperation with other parties as outlined in national legislation and implemented via the National and Prefectural governments and local fishery cooperatives. (b) There is incorporated mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes at Funabashi Fishery Cooperative level written in its statute. Yet it was not determined and not provided the certain documents at the site visit that the mechanism is effectively working. (c) The management system is consistent with any of legal framework or rights for people depend on fisheries for food and livelihood, noting in particular the Japanese legislation supporting community based management via FCAs. RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Governance and Policy

PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to Consultation, interested and affected parties. roles and The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in responsibilitie the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties s

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 70 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and Roles and individuals involved in individuals involved in the individuals involved in the responsibilitie the management management process have management process have s process have been been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities roles and responsibilities roles and are explicitly defined and are explicitly defined and responsibilities are well understood for key well understood for all generally understood. areas of responsibility and areas of responsibility and interaction. interaction. (b) The management The management system The management system Consultation system includes includes consultation includes consultation processes consultation processes processes that regularly processes that regularly that obtain relevant seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant information from the information, including local information, including local main affected parties, knowledge. The knowledge. The including local management system management system knowledge, to inform demonstrates demonstrates the management consideration of the consideration of the system. information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. (c) The consultation process The consultation process Participation provides opportunity for provides opportunity and all interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Justification/Rationale (a)Organizations and individuals involved in the management process are generally identified with their roles and responsibilities. There are some occasional consultation processes occurring at local (FCA) and prefectural levels to obtain relevant information from related parties (proved at the on-site meeting of this assessment). Due to the lack of national regulations specific to the targeted species, the consultation process is not as relevant at the national level. (b) There is evidence of consultation processes, particularly through collaboration with academic research institutions. However, consultation appears to be occasional and is not systematic in regularly seeking and accepting information. (c) The mechanism to provide opportunity for all interested and affected parties was not observed at all levels of management.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 71 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

Component Governance and Policy

PI 3.1.3 Long The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making term that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the objectives precautionary approach.

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives Objectives guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC fisheries standard and fisheries standard and the fisheries standard and the the precautionary precautionary approach precautionary approach, approach, are implicit are explicit within are explicit within and within management management policy. required by management policy. policy. Justification/Rationale MAFF has been promoting the resource management by explaining the different ‘appropriate resource management’ methods on their website from the perspective of sustainable fishing practices and food provisioning (MAFF b). Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative explicitly expresses the need of appropriate resource management with specific regulations in its Funabashi Fishery Cooperative’s resource management plan. However, there is no explicit statement aligning long term objectives and decisions with the precautionary approach.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Fishery Specific Management System

PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to Fishery- achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. specific objectives

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 72 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

(a) Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and Objectives broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed by which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, consistent with achieving implicit within the are explicit within the the outcomes expressed by fishery-specific fishery-specific MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, management system. management system. are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Justification/Rationale Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative’s resource management plan begin with the statement of importance of resource management on species including sea perch and sardine. The statement is followed by specific regulations and therefore it can be said that there are objectives for sustainable fisheries management implicit in the management system. However, there are no short term objectives, and regulations do not strongly align with Principles 1 and 2, therefore this is considered to pass with a condition.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Fishery Specific Management System

PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making Decision- processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has making an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. processes

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) There are some There are established Decision- decision-making decision-making processes making processes in place that that result in measures and processes result in measures and strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve fishery-specific objectives. the fishery-specific objectives.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 73 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

(b) Decision-making Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Responsivene processes respond to respond to serious and respond to all issues ss of decision- serious issues identified other important issues identified in relevant making in relevant research, identified in relevant research, monitoring, processes monitoring, evaluation research, monitoring, evaluation and and consultation, in a evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take take some account of adaptive manner and take account of the wider the wider implications account of the wider implications of decisions. of decisions. implications of decisions. (c) Use of Decision-making processes precautionary use the precautionary approach approach and are based on best available information. (d) Some information on Information on the Formal reporting to all Accountability the fishery’s fishery’s performance and interested stakeholders and performance and management action is provides comprehensive transparency management action is available on request, and information on the of generally available on explanations are provided fishery’s performance and management request to stakeholders. for any actions or lack of management actions and system and action associated with describes how the decision- findings and relevant management system making recommendations responded to findings and process emerging from research, relevant recommendations monitoring, evaluation and emerging from research, review activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. (e) Approach Although the The management system The management system to disputes management authority or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively or fishery may be comply in a timely fashion to avoid legal disputes or subject to continuing with judicial decisions rapidly implements judicial court challenges, it is arising from any legal decisions arising from legal not indicating a challenges. challenges. disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Justification/Rationale

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 74 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

(a)There is a regular meeting among fisheries operating using same gear types (Tokyo Bay Northern purse seine operators’ cooperative), and within the Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative. (b)The assessment team was told there is decision making process for serious issues and important issues at Funabashi Fisheries Cooperative level, partially evidenced by the development of a fisheries management plan with voluntary FCA-level measures. However, the assessment team was not provided with any details regarding decision making processes. (c) precautionary approach is not observed because there is no harvest control rule that limits removals based on stock status, and several management measures in place pertain to market interests rather than sustainability goals. (d) Information on the fishery’s performance and management action is available on request, and the client has stated that it is ready to provide for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging if necessary. (e) The assessment team has no reason to believe that management system or fishery would not attempt to comply in a timely fashion with judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. There have been no legal challenges to prove this though.

RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Fishery Specific Management System

PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management Compliance measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. and enforcement

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive MCS surveillance surveillance system has monitoring, control and implementati mechanisms exist, and been implemented in the surveillance system has on are implemented in the fishery and has been implemented in the fishery and there is a demonstrated an ability to fishery and has reasonable expectation enforce relevant demonstrated a consistent that they are effective. management measures, ability to enforce relevant strategies and/or rules. management measures, strategies and/or rules. (b) Sanctions Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- non-compliance exist compliance exist, are compliance exist, are and there is some consistently applied and consistently applied and evidence that they are thought to provide demonstrably provide applied. effective deterrence. effective deterrence.

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 75 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

(c) Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of Compliance thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers the management comply with the comply with the system for the fishery management system under management system under under assessment, assessment, including, assessment, including, including, when when required, providing providing information of required, providing information of importance importance to the effective information of to the effective management of the importance to the management of the fishery. effective management fishery. of the fishery. (d) There is no evidence of Systematic systematic non- non- compliance. compliancepr ocess Justification/Rationale (a) The most volume of sea perch landing can be monitored through the record of wholesales; however, there are other supply chain for small volume such as direct sales through the Internet. There are no logbook requirements, or data verification systems (e.g. observer programs) in place. There is no system to verifiably monitor discards at sea or interactions with ETP species. There does not seem to be any consistent enforcement at sea for existing fishery regulations (e.g. spatial purse seine fishing area restrictions), and informal enforcement within the FCA does not appear strong. (b )Legal procedure regarding the violation of fishery rights in terms of operation area exist (including patrol by Japan Coast Guard, though they are more focus on traffic safety and rescue). Although there are a few lines regarding sanctions in the FCA’s management plan, they are ‘appropriate sanctions may be applied’ without any details and the assessment team saw no evidence that they are applied. (c) Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, and fishers also regularly participate in non-mandated practices such as collection of fishery data in logbooks, voluntary fishery closure in February, and release of juvenile sea perch. (d )No evidence of systematic non-compliance, but without enforcement on the water or at landings this cannot be verified. RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pre-condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Component Fishery Specific Management System

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 76 of 38

SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.4 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery- Monitoring specific management system against its objectives. and There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. management performance evaluation

Scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100

(a) There are mechanisms There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in Evaluation in place to evaluate place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts coverage some parts of the of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific fishery-specific management system management system. management system. (b) Internal The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific and/or management system is management system is management system is external subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal review internal review. and occasional external and external review. review. Justification/Rationale (a) There is occasional evaluation on specific matters within the Northern Tokyo Bay Purse Seine Association when required (i.e., the reparing common equipment at the port) however there is no clear mechanism for how often and what needs to be evaluated. (b) Fishery-specific management system is expressed in the Funabashi Fishery Cooperative Management plan for sea perch. The assessment team is not aware of any formal internal or external review mechanisms, however. RBF Likely Scoring Level Required? O RBF can’t be used (pass/pass with Pass with condition (P/O/) condition/pre-condition)

Version 1-0 (July 2012) | © SCS Global Services Page 77 of 38