FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD Findhorn House, Dochfour Business Centre, Dochgarroch, Inverness, IV3 8GY, Scotland, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1463 223 039 Fax: +44 (0) 1463 246 380 www.foodcertint.com
MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries for albacore, bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna
Public Comment Draft Report
July 2010
Prepared for: The St Helena Development Agency (SHDA) Prepared by: Food Certification International Ltd
A company incorporated in Scotland No SC313289 Registered address: Findhorn House, Dochfour Business Centre, Dochgarroch, Inverness, IV3 8GY, Scotland, UK
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Public Comment Draft Report
July 2010
Authors: C. Carleton, P. Medley, T. Southall, M. Gill
Certification Body: Client: Food Certification International Ltd St Helena Development Agency Address: Address: Findhorn House, Dochfour Business Centre PO Box 117 Dochgarroch St Helena Island Inverness STHL 1ZZ Scotland IV3 8GY South Atlantic
T: +44(0) 1463 223 039 T: +(290) 2920 E: [email protected] E: [email protected] W: www.foodcertint.com W: www.shda.co.sh
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Contents
Glossary of Terms ...... i Summary ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Scope ...... 4 1.2 Report Structure ...... 4 1.3 Assessment methodology ...... 5 1.4 Inspections & Consultations ...... 5 2. The Fishery ...... 7 2.1 Context ...... 7 2.2 The Client Group ...... 8 2.3 Overview of the Fishery ...... 9 2.4 Fishing Methods ...... 12 2.5 Landings ...... 13 2.6 Fishery Management ...... 16 3. Target stock status & harvest controls (P1) ...... 17 3.1 Coverage and Source Documents ...... 17 3.2 Stock Biology and Structure ...... 17 3.3 International Fisheries for Atlantic Tuna ...... 19 3.4 Stock Status and Reference Points for Atlantic Fisheries ...... 20 3.5 Harvest Strategy and Harvest Control Rule for Atlantic Fisheries ...... 22 3.6 Information and Stock Assessment for Atlantic Fisheries ...... 23 4. Environmental Elements (P2) ...... 26 4.1 Context ...... 26 4.2 Bycatch (retained and discarded) ...... 27 4.2.1 Bycatch - retained ...... 30 4.2.2 Bycatch - discarded ...... 31 4.3 ETP Species ...... 32 4.4 Habitat ...... 33 4.5 Ecosystem Structure and Function ...... 34 5. Administrative context (P3) ...... 35 5.1 Governance ...... 35 5.2 Decision-Making Processes ...... 37
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
5.3 Long-Term Fishing Objectives ...... 38 5.4 Incentives to Sustainable Fishing ...... 39 5.5 Fishery-Specific Objectives...... 39 5.6 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance ...... 40 5.7 Research Plan ...... 40 5.8 Evaluation of Management Systems ...... 40 6. Background to the Evaluation ...... 42 6.1 Assessment team ...... 42 6.2 Public Consultation ...... 43 6.3 Stakeholder Consultation ...... 43 6.4 Interview Programme ...... 44 6.5 Other Certification Evaluations and Harmonisation ...... 45 6.6 Information Sources Used ...... 46 7. Scoring ...... 47 7.1 Scoring Methodology ...... 47 7.2 The Risk-Based Framework ...... 48 7.3 Scoring ...... 49 8. Certification Recommendation ...... 51 8.1 Overall Scores ...... 51 8.2 Limit of Identification of Landings ...... 51 8.3 Conditions ...... 51 8.4 Recommended Actions ...... 61 9. Applicant’s Agreement to Conditions ...... 64
Appendix 1 – MSC Ps & Cs ...... 65 Appendix 2 – References ...... 69 Appendix 3 – Assessment Tree / Scoring sheets ...... 73 Appendix 4 – RBF SICA and PSA tables ...... 134 Appendix 5 – Peer review reports ...... 138 Appendix 6 – Client Action Plan ...... 151
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Glossary of Terms
ASCOBANS (Bonn Convention’s) Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Atlanto-Scandian and Baltic ACOM ICES Advisory Committee ACFA ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture ASH Atlanto-Scandian Herring AT The MSC assessment tree used for scoring a fishery BIM Bord Iascaigh Mhara – the Irish state agency with primary responsibility for developing the seafish and aquaculture industries.
Bpa Precautionary reference point for spawning stock biomass
Blim Limit biomass reference point, below which recruitment is expected to be impaired CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (UK) CFP Common Fisheries Policy CR Council Regulation DAFF Irish Department of Agriculture, Food & Fisheries EC European Commission EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species EU European Union F Fishing Mortality
Flim Limit reference point for fishing mortality that is expected to drive the stock to the biomass limit
Fpa Precautionary reference point of fishing mortality expected to maintain the SSB at the precautionary reference point FAM MSC’s Fisheries Assessment Methodology FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation HCR Harvest Control Rule ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IFPO Irish Fish Producers Organisation IMR Norwegian Institute of Marine Research IPSA Irish Pelagic Sustainability Association IS&WFPO Irish South & West Fish Producers Organisation
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 i Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
ITQ Individual Transferable Quota IWC International Whaling Commission KFO Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NEAFC The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NEA North East Atlantic NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OSPAR Oslo-Paris Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) P1 MSC Principle 1 P2 MSC Principle 2 P3 MSC Principle 3 PI MSC Performance Indicator PO Producer Organisation RAC Regional Advisory Council RSW Refrigerated Sea Water SFPA Irish Sea Fisheries Protection Agency SFO Scottish Fisherman’s Organisation Ltd. SONAR Sound navigation and ranging SPSG Scottish Pelagic Sustainability Group SSB Spawning Stock Biomass TAC Total Allowable Catch UK United Kingdom UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea VMS Vessel Monitoring System VPA Virtual Population Analysis WGNPBW ICES Working Group on Northern Pelagic and Blue Whiting Fisheries. WGRED ICES Working Group on Regional Ecosystem Description WGWIDE ICES Working Group on Widely Distributed Stocks WWF World Wide Fund For Nature
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 ii Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Summary
» This report provides details of the MSC assessment process for the St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries for albacore, bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna. The assessment process began in February 2009 and concluded in July 2010. » The island of St Helena is a small isolated island located just inside the southern tropics of the Atlantic Ocean, about half way between Africa and South America. » This assessment covers a fleet of 12 small vessels (<12m) entitled to fish in the waters around St Helena. The vessels use hook and line techniques to fish for a range of tunas. » Fishing takes place across the year, with landing made to the island. » A rigorous assessment of the wide-ranging MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team and detailed and fully referenced scoring rationale is provided in the assessment tree provided in Appendix 3 of this report. » On completion of the assessment and scoring process, the assessment team concluded that the St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries for albacore, bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna could NOT be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. » There are a number of areas in which the fishery scored well: › the assessment of stocks; › the impact of fisheries on the habitat; › the day-to-day management of the fisheries. » However, for a number of Criteria, scores were awarded at levels below the unconditional pass mark. Where the average of all criteria under a single Principle comes to 80 or more, this is sufficient to support a recommendation for certification of the fishery. In such a case those Criteria scored below the unconditional level (<80) would attract the raising of binding conditions relating to those criteria, to be addressed in a specified timeframe (within the 5 year lifespan of the certificate). » In the case of the four St Helena fisheries this was the case for Principles 2 (environmental impact) and 3 (fishery management), but for Principle 1 (stock management) the large number of these low scores against each of the four tuna stocks was such as to bring the average score below that required to meet the MSC standard. It is on this basis that the fishery is adjudged as not meeting the MSC standard. » The St Helena tuna fisheries are small in scale (a harvest of some 500 tonnes of fish, providing income to some 40 fishermen at most), and undertaken in remote and unusual circumstances. The assessment of fishing practice and fishery management systems has been approached at a level appropriate to the scale and complexity of these fisheries. Overall, the management of these fisheries and their impact on other species and the environment are considered to comply, as a generality, with “good practice”, though there are a number of areas where improvements could and
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 1 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
should be made – most notably in the tightening up of management strategies and systems, and attention to detail. Whilst a number of Criteria under Principles 2 (environmental impact) and 3 (fishery management) scored below the unconditional pass mark, practice was still sufficient overall to support a recommendation for certification of this fishery against these Principles. » But the St Helena tuna fisheries exploit, albeit at a very modest level, stocks that span large parts of the Atlantic Ocean – the whole of the Atlantic in the case of bigeye and yellowfin, the eastern half of the Atlantic in the case of skipjack, and the southern Atlantic in the case of albacore. These stocks are exploited by the fleets of a large number of countries, with management coordinated through the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Whilst the management systems employed by ICCAT do not fully comply with the standard required by the MSC, it is the failure of the member countries of ICCAT to fully commit to the effective management of these stocks, and to comply with the management measures agreed by them through ICCAT1, that has attracted low scores under Principle 1. It is evident that St Helena and its tuna fisheries do not contribute to these poor practices, but since Principle 1 is assessed on the basis of the condition and management of tuna stocks as a whole it is actually the practices of others that lead to a low and non-compliant score under Principle 1. Under these circumstances there is nothing that the St Helena Government or the St Helena fisheries can materially do to change these scores. » The Criteria that are assessed as falling below “good practice” (<80) are: › The assessment of each of the bigeye, yellowfin and albacore tuna stocks indicates that each falls below the target status set for that stock, and some re-building of the stock is required – attracting a score below that representing “good practice” (i.e. 80). › Whilst some reference points are set for the management of each of the tuna stocks, others have to be inferred – a state that falls below “good practice”. › In the case of skipjack, the harvest strategy lacks credibility. Despite the stock being considered to be in good condition, there are concerns about the quality of the data on which this assessment is based, and no TAC has been established for this stock. › For each of the fisheries no well-defined harvest control rule has been agreed, and there is a lack of evidence that the contracting parties will be able to implement a reduction in TAC when called on to do so – this falls well below the standard expected. › Information with regard to the state of skipjack fisheries and stock are of insufficient quality. » Under Principles 2 and 3 there are various areas where practice has been scored below “good practice” (<80), and where improvement could and should be implemented. These are all areas where St Helena managers and fishermen are in a
1 Reported on in the ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 2 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
position to achieve improvements. These areas, which would, if the fisheries were to be recommended for certification, attract conditions, are: › There is capture and retention of blue marlin and white marlin, the stocks of which are both considered to be over-exploited and in need of re-building – attracting a score of below “good practice”. › Whilst good landings data records are collated on St Helena, information on the landings of billfish and wahoo are not consistently reported to ICCAT. › There is no formal or coherent management strategy to minimise the capture and discarding of vulnerable species, such as sharks, even though, in general, practices are in place to avoid the capture of these fished bycatch. This falls short of “good practice”. › There is no systematic recording of discards – a condition that falls short of “good practice”. › There is no systematic recording of sightings and/or capture of Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species, such as seabirds, cetaceans and turtles. › The legislation covering fisheries management is not explicit in setting the objectives of management, plus more positive management of the local fishery would be needed to comply with “good practice”. › The decision-making processes for management of the St Helena tuna fisheries are largely vested in ICCAT and its management structures; the effectiveness of these systems and processes fall short of “good practice”. » In general, for most Criteria, status and practice are scored at the level of “good practice” and no higher. This complies with the standard, but for such a small and relatively straightforward set of fisheries, performance above “good practice” should form the norm. Despite non-compliance in respect of Principle 1, there should be a reasonable expectation to achieve scores for Principles 2 and 3 well above the level of “good practice” – a level of compliance to the standard of a “well managed and sustainable fishery” that managers and industry can be proud of. » Background information on these fisheries is provided in the main body of the report – providing background to the target species and fishery covered by the assessment, the wider impacts of the fishery and the management regime, and supported by full details of the assessment team, a full list of references used and details of the stakeholder consultation process.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 3 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
1. Introduction Fig 1 – Map of EEZs of British Atlantic Overseas Territories
This report details the background, Africa justification and results of Food
Certification International’s (FCI) Ascension South assessment of the St. Helena pole & line St Helena and rod & line tuna fisheries for yellowfin, America bigeye, albacore and skipjack tuna, carried out by Food Certification International to the standard of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) sustainable fisheries programme. Tristan da Cunha & Gough 1.1 Scope
First and foremost, the purpose of this report is to provide a clear and auditable account of the process that was undertaken by the team of FCI assessors. The report aims to provide clear justification for the assessment scores that have been attributed to the fishery, and identify the sources of information that have been used to support these. This should enable subsequent surveillance or even re- certification teams to rapidly pin-point where the key challenges lie within the fishery, and quickly highlight any changes which may affect the overall sustainability of the fishery. In order to provide useful background and information for a wider readership, in the main part of the report is a more qualitative account of the fishery in question. However, it should be reiterated that no primary research has been undertaken to inform this report. The report is therefore not intended to comply with the standard editing norms expected for scientific journals. Instead it is intended that the report should be sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be reviewed by fisheries specialists, whist remaining sufficiently accessible to provide insight for interested readers throughout the supply chain – including consumers. This is a challenging balance to strike without alienating either readership.
1.2 Report Structure
Early report sections provide the reader with a clear comprehension of the nature of the fishery, enabling a broader understanding of the issues debated by the team when scoring the fishery. For the purposes of precision, this begins with a description of the unit of certification, before expanding to outline some further background information, including details of the client group, the fleet, gear used, fishing operations and the target species. Subsequent sections are then broadly aligned to the 3 MSC principles2, which form the basic structure of the assessment, namely: » Principle 1: Target stock status and harvest controls (summarised in section 3) » Principle 2: Wider impacts of fishery operations (summarised in section 4) » Principle 3: The management system (summarised in section 5)
2 Further information on the contents of the MSC principles and criteria are contained in Appendix 1.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 4 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Later sections of the report explain the procedures used to score the fishery, give details of the assessment team, and present the outcome of the team’s deliberations. Finally the report provides a statement of the team’s recommendations as to whether or not this fishery should go forward for certification to the standard of the Marine Stewardship Council, together with any conditions recommended.
1.3 Assessment methodology
This assessment has been undertaken using the methodologies incorporated in the MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology v2 (FAM2) July 2009 including default assessment tree and risk-based framework (RBF). The assessment and scoring process is described in Chapter 7 and further in Appendices 1 and 4. Where appropriate the MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology allows the risk-based framework to be utilised to determine scoring in the case of Performance Indicators (PIs) 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.4.1 and 2.5.1. In this assessment the RBF has been used to determine scoring in the PIs 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 only.
1.4 Inspections & Consultations
The full assessment process commenced in February 2009. Given the isolated nature of the island of St Helena it was considered inappropriate that the whole assessment team make a site visit to the fishery. Accordingly, in July 2009 the assessment team leader undertook the site visit to the island of St Helena. This enabled a scheduled programme of consultations to take place with key stakeholders in the fishery – including skippers, processors, NGOs, fishery managers, regulators and technical support staff. A complete list of those stakeholders interviewed in the fishery can be found in Section 6.4 of this report. The scoring of the fishery against the MSC principles and criteria took place in November 2009 at the offices of FCI in Inverness, Scotland.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 5 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Unit of Certification
The fishery assessed for MSC certification is defined as: Species: yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, and skipjack tunas Stocks: the Atlantic yellowfin and bigeye stocks, the southern Atlantic albacore stock, and the eastern Atlantic skipjack stock Geographical area: the EEZ of the island of St. Helena Harvest method: pole and line, rod and line Management System:The tuna fishery occurs within the waters of St. Helena Island, a British Protectorate. The Directorate of Fisheries of the Government of St. Helena has authority for local management within limits set by Island Government. International management occurs under the auspices of the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). ICCAT operates under a consensus-driven decision making process among the member nations. Client Group: St. Helena Development Agency, in partnership with: » Directorate of Fisheries, » St Helena Government, » St Helena Fisheries Corporation, » Argos Atlantic Cold Stores Ltd, » St Helena Fishermen’s Association,
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 6 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
2. The Fishery 2.1 Context
St Helena is one of the most isolated inhabited islands in the world, and the furthest away from its nearest neighbour (in this case the island of Ascension, 1,127kms to the north). The island is part of a 5,000m seamount of volcanic origin, with the top 800m lying proud of the sea surface. The island measures some 16km long, by 10km at its widest. Its terrain is characterised by a partly wooded central highland area, surrounded by sparse and arid landscape fringed in sheer sea cliffs, broken by a few steep sided gullies.
The island has a population of 4,500 people, of Fig 2 – the RMS St Helena (Royal Mail Ship) at moorings in which perhaps two thirds live in the island James Bay, with examples of the local fishing fleet marked capital of Jamestown and its associated suburb of Half Tree Hollow. The economy is dominated by government employment. The island is the beneficiary of significant capital and recurrent budgetary support from the UK, and its residents receive remittances from family members working off-island, most particularly on Ascension Island, the Falkland Islands, and the UK. Many families augment the purchase of imported foodstuffs with subsistence food production. There is also some (limited) commercial agriculture and fishing. The island supports a commercial fleet of 12 small-scale vessels, providing full-time employment for up to 40 men. The island has no harbour facilities as such – cargo, fish and people are ferried to and from boats held on deep-water moorings in James Bay. Fishing boats are also kept on moorings in the bay (Fig 2). Lifeboat and search and rescue facilities are minimal, generally limiting the range over which these local fishing vessels can safely operate. The island is serviced by a mail-boat that carries cargo and passengers to and from Cape Town to the south and Ascension Island to the north3 from which air connection can be made to the rest of the world (there are currently no airport facilities on the island). St Helena exports relatively small quantities of frozen fish (15 to 30 short-container loads per year – 150 to 300t of whole and processed product), and small quantities of its unique island coffee (annual production of several tonnes only). Coordination of the management of the tuna stocks and fisheries of the Atlantic Ocean are vested in the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO), ICCAT (the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas). This organisation provides its members (including the UK and St Helena) with information on stock status, and advises on management approaches and catch limits. The UK and St Helena seek to comply with all the
3 This vessel also makes two or three trips a year to Europe.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 7 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
procedures and recommendations developed by ICCAT and agreed by its members. Management of the St Helena tuna fisheries are in compliance with ICCAT requirements.
2.2 The Client Group
The client group is headed by the St Helena Development Agency (SHDA), a public body holding a mandate for the economic development of the island through enterprise. It operates at arm’s length from the civil service, with a board drawn from the business sector. It reports to DFID and the FCO. It has the development of the St Helena fishery industry as one of its strategic objectives, and is working with all elements of the industry to achieve this, including the St Helena Government administration and NGOs. Fig 3 – Target tuna species – with relative sizes shown The St Helena fishery industry comprises: roughly to scale » The St. Helena Fisheries Corporation, a public authority established by legislation to facilitate the orderly harvesting, handling, processing and marketing of St Helena fish » A mixed fleet of 12 privately owned small vessels each holding a license to fish commercially » The Argos Atlantic Cold Stores Ltd, a private company holding a license to receive, handle and distribute all fish landed to the island by the commercial fleet on behalf of the St Helena Fisheries Source: from “Fish and Fisheries of Saint Helena Island” by Corporation Alasdair Edwards » The St Helena Canning Company, a private company canning tuna for sale on the island and for export » KGT Williams Fish Retailers, licensed to supply fish to the island market through its retail shop, fish van and under direct contract to SHFC. All commercial vessel owners are members of the St Helena Fishermen’s Association, which represents the interests of the fishermen and provides a conduit for consultation between fishers and the St Helena Fisheries Corporation, administrators, managers and the catchers. As a condition of license, all raw material used by the St Helena Canning Company and KGT Williams must be sourced from the Argos Atlantic Cold Stores. Together, all the above form the client group for this assessment.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 8 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
2.3 Overview of the Fishery
The St. Helena fishermen fish from small boats (up to 12m in length) powered by small inboard diesels or outboard engines (between 10 and 100hp). They fish using pole & line or rod & line with a single hook per line to fish for yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, and skipjack tunas (see Fig 3). The St. Helena fishery for tuna is unchanged from practices used 50 years and more ago, with the one exception that modern sports fishing rods and reels are used to augment the use of bamboo poles. St Helena lies just inside the southern tropics at latitude 22˚S, lying to the east of the mid - Atlantic ridge about half way between Luanda, Angola and Buenos Aires, Argentina. It is one of a line of seamounts extending south south-west from the crux of West and Central Africa (the Bay of Guinea), each seamount rising several thousand metres from the ocean floor (see Fig 4). St Helena is geologically the youngest of these seamounts, and breaks the sea surface rising to a height of some 800m above sea level. None of the other seamounts along this line break the sea surface. Within the St Helena 200 mile EEZ are to be found three other seamounts - Bonaparte (the seamount plateau is 105m below the sea surface), Kutozov (410m below the sea surface) and Cardno (77m below the sea surface) (see Fig 4). 1,127km to the north is to be found Ascension Island, and 1,500 kms to the south the Tristan da Cunha Islands, Gough Island and the Vema Seamount (another seamount that does not break the sea surface). Tuna are large free-swimming fish inhabiting the surface waters of the sea, typically down to a depth of only a few hundred feet. They feed on surface swimming (broadly in the top 30m or so of water) smaller fish. They are truly oceanic fish, but can be attracted to areas of shallower water, and/or areas where waters of different temperature and salinity mix – both areas where higher concentrations of smaller feed fish are to be found relative to open ocean. Fig 4 – Location of St Helena The tunas found around St Helena are constantly on the move, and traverse the southern ocean as part of a regular pattern of cyclical migration. Each tuna species has its own pattern. The St Helena fishery is conducted by a fleet of very small open or decked shallow draught boats fishing within only a few miles of the island. As such the fishery is largely opportunist – seeking to locate any tuna that are tempted to stay in the vicinity of the island, primarily attracted by slightly raised concentrations of feed fish.
Source: adapted from Google Earth
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 9 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Table 1 – The St Helena commercial fishing fleet owner vessel name vessel no. length (m) Adrian Duncan Ocean Queen 11 8.6 Melvyn O'Bey Ocean Wave 36 8.6 Trevor Thomas Cat Fish 44 8.6 Gavin Maggott Ocean Spray 66 8.6 Fred Johnson Ocean Gypsy 68 8.6 Peter Benjamin Helena Dorothy 23 9.2 Ronald Caswell Yellow Fin 57 9.7 Dorian Caswell Sword Fish 85 10.5 Wayne Yon John Mellis 45 11.1 Robert Bedwell, Ocean Angel 1 Tony Thomas Sea Rover 16 Max Thomas Line Walker 21 Source: St Helena Dept. of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR)
These fisheries display markedly seasonal but partially overlapping patterns. Their geographic distribution is also affected by the fact that the seasonal migration patterns of tuna can shift north and south between years, according to changes in oceanic conditions. Accordingly, the seasonality and total availability of tuna can change dramatically year to year. Whilst the bigeye, yellowfin, albacore and skipjack tunas are schooling fish, they are not found in large concentrations around St Helena. The St Helena fishery tends to exploit larger adult bigeye (50kgs+), and a mix of large adult yellowfin (50kg) and smaller, immature, yellowfin (10kg). For a short season of a few weeks, albacore schools are located within between one and twenty miles of the island, which some components of the fleet can access. These fish tend to be near-adult fish (10-20kg). Skipjack tuna tend to congregate in small but dense schools, particularly when feeding. These tend to be adult fish weighing between 3 and 5kg.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 10 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Historically these tuna fisheries Fig 5 - The location of fishing around the island of St Helena have been exploited using small open boats. The fleet comprises boats that have been acquired at various times and from various sources over the last hundred years – typically as second-hand hulls. These are fitted with marinised second-hand diesel engines, or modern petrol outboards. The fishery occurs in water depths of 100 to 200m in the waters close to St. Helena, most often over hard bottom. Fishermen typically catch their own bait of round scad (Decapterus spp.). Fishermen use live and cut bait to attract tuna to the boats, and subsequently use both bait and jigs to sight-fish for the tuna. Source: based on sketch map prepared by C Ninnes, reproduced in “Fish Fishing, to this day, takes place and Fisheries of Saint Helena Island” by Alisdair Edwards within only a few miles of the Notes – solid circles indicate main fishing “marks”, with size island, with fishing “marks” indicating frequency of use; the red X indicates the location of the located around the island moorings; the large shaded area indicates the most commonly typically at about the 150m used leeward fishing grounds; the inshore small shaded area is depth contour being where most where most baitfish is caught. fish are caught. With the addition of slightly more sophisticated vessels to the fleet, plus recent uptake in the use of GPS and radio, a proportion of skippers are now able to venture further from the island – say, out to 15kms – for example to chase down the albacore schools. Very occasionally one or two vessels have ventured as far as the nearest seamount, some 60kms away. Because of the rocky and steep-sided nature of the island there are no beaches to speak of, and landing facilities are basic. For safety reasons vessels are held on offshore moorings when not fishing, loading and unloading. Vessels, typically with a crew ranging from one to three fishermen, put to sea in the early hours of the morning, and return to moorings in late afternoon. Fish are landed to one of two landing stations from where the fish are transported to the fish plant where they are cooled, butchered, packed, frozen and stored. Product is shipped in refrigerated containers to the UK, Namibia or South Africa aboard the RMS St Helena. This vessel mainly services a local route of Cape Town – Walvis Bay – St Helena – Ascension Island and back. Twice a year it makes the journey northward to the UK, calling into the Canary Islands and mainland Spain en route.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 11 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
2.4 Fishing Methods
The fisheries for these four tuna species involve two types of fishing gear – rod & line, and pole & line. These are deployed according to three methods – trolling, drop lining, and pole & line fishing. The fishery in the main uses baited hooks and fishermen typically catch their own bait. Fishermen use live bait as chum to attract tuna to the boats, and subsequently use both bait and jigs to sight-fish for the tuna. Trolling involves the drawing of one or more lines from the back of the vessel at speeds of between 2 and 4 knots. The hook is baited with a lure or with dead fish. A sporting rod and reel is used to set and haul the troll. Line fishing involves the use of a single hook and sinker, baited with dead fish or equivalent, or with a live baitfish. The hook is suspended in the water column, and off the bottom. A sporting rod and reel is used in this fishery, replacing the more traditional handline (which is still used to fish groundfish). Pole & line fishing exploits the behaviour of schooling and feeding tuna (typically skipjack tuna, but also small yellowfin), when fish get into a feeding frenzy when feeding on a shoal of small baitfish, and will grab indiscriminately at anything in their sight. A barbless hook with a feather lure is dangled in the upper few inches of water suspended from a bamboo pole. The lure is placed in the middle of a feeding school of tuna. When a fish is hooked it is pulled in one easy movement out of the water into the boat where it will normally slip off the hook. At its best, two or three fish can be hooked and landed every minute. Each of the above techniques takes place within the water column, and off the seabed. Interactions with other marine species are thus limited to the capture of other pelagic fish found in the same habitat as tuna, and the capture of round scad for use as bait. A rod and line and handline fishery for grouper is the only other substantial fishery associated with the island. This is currently managed on the basis of quota. St Helena does enter into license agreements with other countries to allow them to fish within the St Helena EEZ (and the EEZs of Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha, which are administered through St Helena). It has done so most often with Japan, but the level of revenues arising from such negotiations have weakened in recent years – as a consequence of year on year variability in fish availability as fish movements have shifted northwards, and as the extent of Japanese longline activity in the Atlantic has declined. Three seamounts are located within the St Helena EEZ. It is very likely that ocean-going vessels from other countries that are fishing in the Atlantic but not licensed to fish within the St Helena EEZ opportunistically exploit these seamounts illegally, but there is little to date that St Helena or the UK has been able to do to identify such activity, let alone to exercise any control of such activity. The Government and the fishing industry have discussed the possible purchase of a longline vessel to exploit fishing opportunities on the seamounts within the St Helena EEZ but, to date, aside from limited trial fishing of these grounds, this has come to nothing. In terms of the daily routine of a St Helena fishing vessel, it involves the following:
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 12 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» crew takes water taxi from the “steps” at Jamestown wharf to the moorings off Jamestown; » steam to bait collection point – typically off Lemon Valley – where they “squeeze” for bait for the day; » set troll lines while shifting to the chosen fishing grounds for that day – grounds chosen on basis of weather and season; » searching for tuna – looking for signs of tuna breaking the surface, looking for seabirds following baitfish, or scanning the water column using the on-board sonar; » fishing for the tuna if sighted, or moving to a point – usually a mark along the 150m contour – to anchor and try and attract fish to the boat » shift ground according to catch rate / fish sightings; » mid-afternoon haul lines and troll back towards Jamestown, stopping to catch tuna if sighted; » radio ahead to St Helena Fisheries Corporation to let them know how much fish has been caught, expected time of arrival in Rupert’s Bay (the bay one along from James Valley where the main fishery infrastructure is located), and how much ice is required for the following day’s fishing; » arrival at Rupert’s Bay where met by staff of St Helena Fisheries Corporation; fishing vessel is backed up to the landing platform, and large plastic containers are winched aboard the fishing boat for loading with the day’s catch and then winched ashore; at the same time bags of flake ice are also transferred to the boat for overnight storage in the hold; » the fishing boat is cleaned and tidied before return to the moorings seaward of the wharf at Jamestown, and fishermen transferred to shore by water taxi.
2.5 Landings
St Helena annual catches have remained at the level of several hundred metric tonnes for some decades – see Table 2 on following page – but with fluctuation in the amount of yellowfin and skipjack landed, reflecting a combination of changes in the prices paid for fish and the abundance of fish in St Helena waters.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 13 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Table 2 – Landings of large pelagic species by the St Helena commercial fisheries Species 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 tuna 86 97 163 235 311 451 241 216 bigeye ... 5 4 7 18 25 ... 15 yellowfin ... 70 158 226 255 363 ...... albacore ... 2 3 2 35 62 45 96 skipjack 205 63 178 317 321 88 109 45 total target species 291 160 241 552 633 539 350 261
Bycatch 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 wahoo 22 25 18 17 11 20 13 17 marlin 3 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 swordfish ...... 0.5 0 0.2 0.1 mako shark ...... 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 mackerel shark ...... 0.1 0.2 ... other shark 6 3 2 ... 0.3 0.1 0.0 ... dorado - 1 1 ...... 2 1 cavalley 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Source: St Helena Fisheries Corporation purchase records Note: ... = no disaggregated data = less than 49kgs or zero
The St. Helena fishery represents only a very minor part of the total landings for the tuna stocks under ICCAT authority – less than one third of one per cent of the total. Table 3 presents the ICCAT 2009 quota allocations for St Helena, and Table 4 gives an indication of St Helena catches as a proportion of total catches for each stock.
Table 3 - ICCAT quota allocation for 2009 to the UKOT’s under which St Helena receives its share. Species Allocation
Bigeye 2,100t
Yellowfin 366t
Albacore 100t
Skipjack Unlimited
Swordfish 25t
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 14 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Table 4 – St Helena landings as a proportion of total landings from each stock species stock total catch St Helena catch as % of total bigeye Atlantic 67,000t (2007) 18t (2007) 0.03% yellowfin Atlantic 108,000t (2006) 363t (2006) 0.34% albacore southern Atlantic 20,000t (2007) 46t (2007) 0.23% skipjack eastern Atlantic 125,000t (2007) 110t (2007) 0.09% Source: ICCAT and the purchase records of the St Helena Fisheries Corporation
Table 5 presents the catch statistics held by ICCAT, highlighting key information gaps for St Helena catches.
Table 5 – ICCAT records of St Helena catches 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Bigeye 17 6 8 5 5 ...... 25 18 yellowfin 181 116 136 72 9 ...... 344 177 Albacore 1 1 58 12 2 ...... 62 46 Skipjack 298 13 64 205 63 63 63 63 88 110 other tunas 2 4 4 3 4 1 ...... Wahoo ...... Total 499 140 270 297 83 64 63 63 519 351
Source: ICCAT statistical bulletin Notes: … – no data submitted skipjack catches for 2003, 2004 & 2005 look like carry over estimates only wahoo catches were reported up until 1998
Tuna that is surplus to local requirements is processed for the export market – to Spain, the UK, and South Africa. The St Helena Fisheries Corporation is responsible for recording the quantities of fish landed, and for paying the fishermen for fish landed according to prices fixed between SHFC, Argos Atlantic Cold Stores and fishermen. Landings are made to the Argos Atlantic Cold Stores plant on behalf of the St Helena Fisheries Corporation, where fish are processed and packed or frozen at the plant. Product for local distribution is sold to KGT Williams Fish Retailers and the St Helena Canning Company.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 15 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
2.6 Fishery Management
St Helena is a British Overseas Territory that is governed under the provisions of the St Helena Constitution of 1988. This provides that there shall be a Governor and Commander- in-Chief, and an Executive Council and a Legislative Council. The Legislative Council is responsible for drawing up and passing St Helena legislation, including relevant fisheries, maritime transport, and nature conservation legislation. St Helena is bound to comply with such international agreements as the UK is a signatory to – including agreements on fisheries, maritime transport, and nature conservation. In the context of environmental management, this compact is specifically secured and detailed in the St Helena Environmental Charter signed between the British Government and the Government of St Helena. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation responsible for coordination of management of tuna stocks and fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean (and Mediterranean). The UK is a member country of ICCAT, and represents the interests of its overseas territories at ICCAT. St Helena has recently secured a place on the ICCAT Yellowfin Working Group. Responsibility for the management of fisheries in the EEZ of St. Helena rests with the Directorate of Fisheries, within the constraints set by ICCAT. The fishery under assessment occurs within the EEZ of St. Helena, but in near-shore areas only. The Directorate of Fisheries licenses all vessels that participate in the fishery, and includes license restrictions to implement any management measures required by ICCAT (e.g. minimum size limits). ICCAT operates under an international agreement, and operates under a consultative decision-making regime. Members agree to comply with measures taken by ICCAT (though the extent of compliance is highly variable across its membership). The management system for south Atlantic tunas is a combination of overall management from ICCAT, and local management by St. Helena of the fishery within its area of jurisdiction. ICCAT sets national quotas for member states; member states have the responsibility for enforcement. St Helena has annual quota allocations within the overall quota allocation for the UK Overseas Territories (the UKOT’s quota allocation is separate from that of the UK; the latter is calculated as part of the EU allocation).
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 16 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3. Target stock status & harvest controls (P1) 3.1 Coverage and Source Documents
Principle 1 of the Marine Stewardship Council standard states that: A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Principle 1 covers all fishing activity on each stock or stock component. Thus for bigeye and yellowfin it covers the whole Atlantic, for albacore it covers the southern Atlantic stock, and for skipjack is covers the eastern Atlantic stock. In general, discussions of P2 and P3 issues relate to the particular fisheries forming the basis of this assessment – the small-scale rod-and-line and pole-and-line fisheries for tuna. But given the small-scale and extreme geographic isolation of these fisheries, and thus the raised importance of ICCAT in guiding the management of the stocks of large pelagic stocks in the Atlantic and in drawing together fishery and research findings, the basis of debate concerning the management of the St Helena fisheries can switch between the large scale (Atlantic) and the conditions local to St Helena. Where this happens, every effort has been made to make it clear what geographic scale is being addressed in a particular argument. Almost all the information presented here was obtained from publicly available documents published through the ICCAT website (www.iccat.int). Full information on stock status, stock assessments and data on which the assessments are based are available in detailed and summary reports for each species. Detailed documents, which also include the executive summary for each stock, are: » ICCAT(2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Albacore Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/015 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(3): 697-815. » ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Bigeye Tuna Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/013 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(1): 97-239. » ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin and Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016. » Additional information on the harvest strategy was obtained from the basic texts which define ICCAT’s role and the interpretation of these by the ICCAT secretariat staff. » ICCAT (2007) Basic Texts. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. 5th Revision. Madrid, Spain. » Restrepo V.R. (2009) Red, Green and Yellow: Thoughts on Stock Status and the ICCAT Convention Objectives. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 64(7): 2663-2673. SCRS/2008/172.
3.2 Stock Biology and Structure
Skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas are gregarious species found in schools in tropical and subtropical waters. Bigeye tuna are distributed throughout the Atlantic Ocean between 50°N and 45°S, but not in the Mediterranean Sea. This species tends to swim deeper than other tropical tuna species and exhibits extensive vertical movements - being found much
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 17 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
deeper during the daytime than at night. Yellowfin are similarly distributed, but more limited to warmer tropical waters, whereas skipjack are found almost exclusively in surface tropical waters. In contrast, albacore is a temperate water tuna widely found throughout the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Tunas are particularly known for their highly migratory behaviour, so not only are the stocks distributed over wide areas involving many countries in their management, but they are difficult subjects for scientific research. Bigeye tuna become mature when over 100cm long and at about 3.5 years old; similar to yellowfin which mature at around 100cm. Bigeye and yellowfin spawning takes place in tropical waters when the environment is favourable. The main spawning ground is the equatorial zone of the Gulf of Guinea primarily from January to April, but yellowfin spawning also occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, south-eastern Caribbean Sea, and off Cape Verde. Juveniles of both species are generally found in coastal waters off Africa, from where they tend to diffuse towards temperate waters as they grow larger. In contrast, skipjack spawns opportunistically from its first year of life throughout the year and in vast sectors of the ocean. Albacore reaches 50% maturity at 90cm and, like most temperate species, is a seasonal spawner. Young yellowfin and bigeye form schools mixed with each other and with skipjack. These schools are often associated with drifting objects, whale sharks and seamounts. This association appears to weaken as yellowfin and bigeye grow larger, when they form free- swimming schools. Natural mortality is likely to be higher for smaller fish and the sex ratio appears to change with size, at least for yellowfin where males are predominant in the catches of larger sized fish. Bigeye exhibit relatively fast growth reaching about 105cm fork length by age 3 and 163cm at age 7. Bigeye tuna are larger than the other tunas, with fish over 200cm being relatively rare, but still occurring with some frequency. Yellowfin growth pattern is similar to bigeye, although there is greater uncertainty over the growth model; this affects stock assessment as length is the main source of information on age. Skipjack tends to be smaller than other tunas, and the growth rate varies with latitude; cooler waters are associated with slower growth. Albacore grows more slowly than the tropical tunas reaching 100cm by age 5. The diet of tunas is very varied, and includes fish, molluscs, and crustaceans, all of which have been found in stomach contents. An important fishery on surface schooling tunas has developed through the use of fish aggregation devices (FAD), particularly off the west coast of Africa. Fish aggregating devices (floating objects) can be natural or artificial. Skipjack is the predominant species under FADs where it is caught in association with juvenile yellowfin and bigeye tuna as well as other species of epipelagic fauna. The association with FADs has increased the vulnerability of smaller yellowfin and bigeye tuna to surface fishing gears. In addition, the increasing presence of FADs for fishing purposes may also have an impact on the ecology (feeding, growth, and movement) of these tunas. The yellowfin and bigeye stocks appear to be genetically homogeneous, and the adults exhibit wide movement across the Atlantic, so Atlantic yellowfin and bigeye are currently treated as single stocks even though several separate spawning areas have been identified. The stock assessment assumes that there are two skipjack stocks on the east and west side of the Atlantic. The larger eastern stock is exploited by the St. Helena fishery. It is quite
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 18 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD possible that there are a number of skipjack stocks which have been combined into this designation, as tagging studies suggest that movement of skipjack is much more limited than for other tunas. However, the lack of data prevents any separate sub-stocks being identified and assessed separately. The available biological information suggests that there are three albacore stocks: northern and southern Atlantic stocks (separated at 5ºN) and a Mediterranean stock. This is largely based on the absence of albacore in the tropical zone. The southern Atlantic stock is exploited by the St. Helena fishery. Although, there is likely intermingling of Indian Ocean and South Atlantic immature albacore, this is assumed negligible for the assessment.
3.3 International Fisheries for Atlantic Tuna
Yellowfin Yellowfin tuna are caught in the entire tropical Atlantic, between 45°N and 40°S, by surface gears (purse seine, pole & line and handline) and by longline. Purse seines take the majority of the catch in the Atlantic. The yellowfin fishery increased landings from the 1950s through the 1970s. Catches since then have fluctuated, with a declining trend during the 1990s. Landings in 2006 for the whole Atlantic were 108,000t. Bigeye The major pole & line fisheries are located in Ghana, Senegal, the Canary Islands, Madeira and the Azores. The tropical purse seine fleets operate in the Gulf of Guinea and off Senegal in the East Atlantic and off Venezuela in the West Atlantic. In the eastern Atlantic the majority of the fleet is owned and/or operated by EC companies. In the western Atlantic the Venezuelan fleet dominates the purse-seine catch of bigeye. While bigeye tuna is now a primary target species for most of the longline and some pole & line fisheries, this species has always been of secondary importance for the other surface fisheries. Unlike yellowfin, bigeye tuna are mostly caught while fishing on floating objects such as logs or man-made fish aggregating devices (FADs). There are two major longline fisheries, operated by Japan and Chinese Taipei, whose combined catch accounted for 35% of the total catch in weight in 2005. While Chinese Taipei’s catch has remained relatively stable since the mid-1990s (averaging about 18,000t per year), Japan’s catch declined after 1994 from about 38,000t and in 2005 was about one third (13,000t) of the 1994 catch. China and the Philippines joined this fishery in 1993 and 1998, respectively, and currently account for about 8,000t per year in combination. The total annual catch increased up to the mid 1970s reaching 60,000t and fluctuated over the next 15 years. In 1991, catch surpassed 95,000t and continued to increase, reaching an historic high of about 132,000t in 1994. Reported and estimated catch has been declining since then and fell below 100,000t in 2001. It was 76,000t in 2006, the lowest recorded level since 1988. After the historic high catch in 1994, all major fisheries exhibited a decline of catch while the relative share by each fishery in total catch remained relatively constant.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 19 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
These reductions in catch are related to declines in fishing fleet size (purse seine and longline) as well as decline in CPUE (longline and pole & line). In 2007 total Atlantic catches of bigeye amounted to 67,000t. Albacore The recent total annual south Atlantic albacore landings were largely attributed to four fisheries, namely the surface pole & line fleets from South Africa and Namibia, and the longline fleets from Brazil and Chinese Taipei. The surface fleets are entirely albacore directed and mainly catch juvenile and sub-adult fish (70-90cm FL). These surface fisheries operate seasonally, from October to May, when albacore are available in coastal waters. Brazilian longliners target albacore during the first and fourth quarters of the year, when an important concentration of adult fish (>90cm ) is observed off the northeast coast of Brazil, between 5°S and 20°S, being likely related to favourable environmental conditions for spawning, particularly of sea surface temperature. The longline Chinese Taipei fleet operates over a larger area and throughout the year, and consists of vessels that target albacore and vessels that take albacore as a by-catch in swordfish or bigeye directed fishing operations. On average, the longline vessels catch larger albacore (60-120cm) than the surface fleets. Total reported albacore landings for 2006 was 24,460t, an increase of about 5,000t compared to the 2005 catch. Large scale fishing began in the 1970s, and the fishery fished down to stock to near BMSY levels during the early 1990s. Since then, the spawning biomass has fluctuated around BMSY. For 2007, the southern Atlantic albacore catch was 20,000t. Skipjack At present, the major fisheries are the purse seine fisheries, particularly those of EC-Spain, EC-France, NEI, Cape Verde, Netherlands Antilles and Ghana, followed by the pole & line fisheries of Ghana, EC-Spain and EC-France. The exploitation of tropical tunas in general, and of skipjack in particular, along the western coast of Africa by artisanal fleets goes back several centuries. In recent times, the first skipjack catch data (1950s) are from the pole & line fleets. In the 1960s, the purse seine fishery developed, originally as a coastal fishery, but, little by little, became more high seas orientated. Numerous changes have occurred in the skipjack fishery since the early 1990s (such as the use of FADs and the expansion of the fishing area towards the west). This has brought about an increase in skipjack catchability and in the proportion of the skipjack stock that is exploited. In 2007 total eastern Atlantic skipjack landings amounted to 125,000t.
3.4 Stock Status and Reference Points for Atlantic Fisheries
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)-based reference points are used in the assessment of all tunas to determine status. These are estimated where possible within the stock assessments for each stock. Although stock status is determined in relation to MSY, separate target and limit reference points are not defined. The TACs that have been set implies that ICCAT intends to raise stocks to be at or above the MSY level giving an
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 20 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
indication of the target reference. However, limit reference points cannot be determined from the available information, and therefore the default level of ½ BMSY is used here to help determine stock status for scoring purposes. Albacore (southern Atlantic) Based on the 2007 assessment which considers catch, size and effort since the 1950s, the southern albacore spawning stock appears to have declined to about 25% of its unfished level in 2005. The ICCAT Scientific Committee concluded that it is likely that both the spawning stock and fishing mortality were below the MSY level (Table 6). This suggests that the stock is depleted but recovering. As the stock is in recovery, the catches will need to remain below the replacement yield of 29,000t to allow the stock to increase to the target level above MSY. Bigeye The 2007 stock assessment of Atlantic bigeye estimated that the biomass at the beginning of 2006 was nearly 92% of the biomass at MSY and the 2005 fishing mortality rate was estimated to be about 13% below the fishing mortality rate at MSY (Table 6). Bigeye is therefore designated as ‘in recovery’ as the biomass is below the target level. However, if fishing mortality remains below FMSY, the stock should recover to the target region. Importantly, the estimates of sustainable yield reflect the current relative mixture of fisheries that capture small or large bigeye and do not otherwise take account of the selectivity of these fisheries. Changing the fleet mixture could alter the yield estimates. Skipjack (eastern Stock) In general, the data available for the stock assessment of skipjack are severely limited and therefore the status is highly uncertain (Table 6). The assessments conducted based on these data suggest, however, that the stock is not overexploited. Skipjack is a robust species, exhibiting fast growth, year-round spawning, and a fairly ubiquitous distribution across the tropical pelagic zone of the Atlantic. The constraint on fisheries targeting skipjack is thought to be bigeye that is caught as bycatch in the surface fishery. Yellowfin The 2006 catches are estimated to be well below MSY levels. The stock biomass was near the MSY objective and the recent fishing mortality rates somewhat below FMSY (Table 6). When the uncertainty around the point estimates is taken into account, there is a 60% chance that stock status is below the target level. Recent trends indicate declining effective effort and the recovery of the stock. With current catches it is highly likely that biomass will increase above the MSY level within a few years. Limits on bigeye catch are limiting the mortality on yellowfin, so the fishing mortality is not expected to rise and the stock should continue to increase.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 21 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Table 6 - Summary of stock status indices for the four stocks of Atlantic tuna Species Albacore (2005) Bigeye (2006) Skipjack (2006) Yellowfin (2006) MSY (‘000 t) 33 (30-37) 90-93 (68-99) 14-17 131 (124-153) Yield in 2007 20 67 125 108 (‘000 t) Replacement 29 85 – 90 >125 130 Yield (‘000 t)
B/BMSY 0.91 (0.71-1.16) 0.92 (0.85-1.07) Most likely >1.00 0.96 (0.72-1.22)
F/FMSY 0.63 (0.47-0.90) 0.87 (0.70-1.24) Most likely <1.00 0.86 (0.71-1.05)
Note: The replacement yield is an estimate of the natural stock production. If the catches are below the replacement yield, the stock should increase in size. The stock status is reported as the biomass (B) and fishing mortality (F) relative to the MSY reference point.
3.5 Harvest Strategy and Harvest Control Rule for Atlantic Fisheries
The status of all stocks is determined in relation to maximum sustainable yield (MSY). This is a direct interpretation of ICCAT’s basic texts, which define the intention of the contracting parties, and cover those countries prosecuting the main fisheries. ICCAT does not separate out limit and target reference points explicitly. Both are implied relative to the MSY reference point. The limiting factor on catches of yellowfin and skipjack is the bigeye tuna catch limit. These three species are caught together in the surface fisheries, particularly by purse seine on fish aggregation devices. Because bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack are caught together, increased harvest of yellowfin or skipjack could have negative consequences for bigeye. ICCAT intends to apply effective measures to reduce fishing mortality of small yellowfin and bigeye tuna, which is necessary to increase long-term sustainable yield. A seasonal closed area to reduce mortality on these (Recommendation 04-01) was implemented in areas where juvenile bigeye and yellowfin are found. This was partially effective, but has been changed seemingly without reference to scientific advice, potentially reducing the effectiveness of this control. Although the stated aim is to maximise the long term yield from the tuna stocks, it is not clear that the approach is precautionary or that management decision-making is taking uncertainty into account. Target catches are set close to or on the MSY level without taking account of the uncertainty of the estimates of MSY. In the case of yellowfin, the MSY point is placed between a spawner-per-recruit (SPR) of 20%-30% rather than the more normal (and default MSC target) of 40% SPR. Although this may be correct, there is an assumed stock-recruitment relationship that may not be well estimated. The lack of a clear approach to risk seems to be a hindrance to the harvest strategy. There are no explicit, well-defined harvest control rules in place. Management action requires an agreement among contracting parties, which is far from assured. The management approach is not pro-active and the “status quo” prevails unless limits are perceived as required. For example, although the bigeye stock is in recovery, the TAC has not been adjusted to be below the MSY at the level recommended by the scientific advice, presumably on the basis that catches are currently low enough without management
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 22 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
intervention. Experience with northern Atlantic bluefin tuna suggests that ICCAT management may not always be effective in rebuilding stocks. St. Helena has no explicit harvest strategy but complies with all ICCAT catch and effort reporting requirements.
3.6 Information and Stock Assessment for Atlantic Fisheries
Catches Catches are generally recorded with sufficient precision for the stock assessment, although past unrecorded catches and misreporting, particularly of bigeye tuna, makes the assessment relatively poor considering the size of the fisheries. Data are showing significant signs of improvement although catches still fluctuate from year to year as they are revised. This suggests that catch records continue to be uncertain. Catches are taken in two types of fishery: surface and longline. Surface fisheries consist of pole & line boats which use live bait to attract and catch mainly skipjack tuna, and purse seine which set predominantly on fish aggregation devices (but also can set on free swimming schools), taking predominantly skipjack, but often mixed with young yellowfin and bigeye tunas. Southern albacore are predominantly taken by longline gears in lower latitudes (< 5oS). Age and size composition Ages are estimated routinely from the size sampling. Landings are sampled routinely for species and length. Ageing is difficult and expensive, so age data are reserved for estimating growth and to reconstruct age from length measurements. Length data are not sufficient in all fisheries and there is inadequate coverage in skipjack and bigeye fisheries. There is a tendency to rely on assessment methods that do not require age or length data. Non-equilibrium production models are used at least as an alternative assessment for all stocks and are the preferred assessment for bigeye tuna. Abundance indices All abundance indices are based on catch-per-unit-effort data obtained from the commercial fisheries. Fishery independent survey data are not available for these stocks due to their extensive dispersion. Broadly two types of indices are available. Those associated with longline target larger yellowfin, bigeye and albacore tunas in deeper waters. However, the catch includes a mix of species and what a vessel is targeting may not always be clear. Nevertheless longline does not involve active search and covers large areas and time periods (both Japanese and Chinese Taipei have decades of reports) making a useful index. Surface fishery indices are more difficult to interpret as they include an element of active search and understanding of the relationship between FADs and tunas, which is poor. The skipjack assessment relies on surface fishery indices only, and is considered unreliable.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 23 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Other information The vessels and fleets targeting tuna are adequately recorded and there is a good estimate of the fishing effort and capacity. There are considerable data on oceanography and tuna ecology, although this is limited compared to many other fished species. Due to the wide ranging migratory habits of tuna, their ecology is not fully understood, although tagging experiments and remote sensing are providing better information for ongoing scientific research. Much of this information is currently not used in the main stock assessments, although it is used for the harvest strategy and scientific advice. Stock assessment A variety of methods, based on available software, have been used to conduct assessments with the available data. Although a fairly sophisticated integrated catch-at-age model (Multifan-CL) is available as one of the methods for stock assessment, the preferred stock assessments use more basic approaches. As well as assessing uncertainty using sensitivity analyses, sampling simulations (“bootstraps”) were used to account for estimation error. These are standard stock assessment techniques in dealing with uncertainty. In addition, a more probabilistic approach has been taken with a Bayesian production model in some cases, although this is not the standard method. Southern albacore was assessed using an age structured production model (ASPM). The data were not thought sufficient to support the more complex catch-at-age model (Multifan-CL), but there was sufficient information to estimate age structure within a production model. Unlike a full catch-at-age model, ASPM does not attempt to estimate cohort sizes accurately, but does account for some changes in productivity due to changes in age and size structure. Yellowfin tuna was assessed using virtual population analysis (VPA), which is an age structured population model, and a non-equilibrium production model that ignores size and age structure. The latter is used because the age information may be misleading. For example, the growth model might be inaccurate or size sampling biased. Both assessment methods are standard approaches. No acceptable stock assessment was undertaken for the eastern skipjack tuna stock. This was primarily because the data are thought inadequate to support a population model. Various assessments were undertaken, however, including standard non-equilibrium production models and a catch-only production model that did not require abundance indices. Based on the assessment results, the fisheries scientists were able to give an indication of the status of the stock, but this remains vague and unreliable. The 2007 bigeye stock assessment was conducted using various types of model. In general, data availability was improved but there is still some lack of information regarding detailed fishing and size data from certain fleets, in addition to the past catch and fishing activities of IUU fleets (e.g. size, location and total catch), leading to the need to assume catch-at-size for an important part of the overall catch. The net result of the deliberations was to adopt a non-equilibrium production model to give scientific advice, which is essentially an update of the model used previously. It makes good use of all the abundance indices, but none of the length or age data. The major concern over the catch of small bigeye is not addressed by the stock assessment, but results from observations made of the surface fisheries of West
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 24 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Africa. While this is adequate, it remains imprecise and there is considerable scope for improvement.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 25 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
4. Environmental Elements (P2)
4.1 Context Box 1 - Strategy for Action to Implement St Helena’s Commitments under its The island of St Helena is a seamount, rising Environment Charter 4,224m from the oceanic floor to the sea surface, Marine / fishery components and then a further 823m to the highest point in the centre of the island. The island has no • All commercial fish have to go to St Helena fisheries and all are recorded (element for beaches as such, but rather its coastline private consumption not recorded, but is comprises precipitous cliffs (some as high as thought to be small). Database which 300m), broken by steep and largely inaccessible monitors all local fish catches daily. Fish gullies. Many valleys are dry in all but the length and weight undertaken at least wettest of years and only James Valley, where once per week on random samples of the fish catch. the island’s capital is located, possesses a permanent stream. Whilst the lower altitude • Marine Scientific Officer monitors 18 sites vegetation comprises arid brush and cactus, the around the island for 10 endemic and 10 common fished species. 6-monthly central parts of the island support mixed forest underwater fish survey. Commonly caught and pasture. species: estimate length. Abundance data The coastal and marine zone of St Helena is on all species. broadly divided into four sub-divisions: • Cetacean monitoring in progress – 2 land and 2 sea surveys per month for » the deep ocean with an average depth of population numbers, species, migration, 4,000m; individual ID photos. » sea-mounts; • Beach survey monthly: Sandy Bay Beach and Rupert’s Beach – erosion patterns. » the inshore water on the narrow and • Specimen collection – mostly molluscs – shallow island shelf; sent for identification.
» the coastline itself, dropping to the low- • Temperature data from Plymouth water mark. monitoring. Reflecting this structure, the waters around St • Resources just secured for establishing a Helena shelve steeply away from the island, monitoring programme for seabirds and reaching a depth of 100m within perhaps one turtles. kilometre of shore, and 500m within between 3 • Fisherman also report whale sightings. and 5 kilometres. • Consider development of project The island shelf has three major types of habitat: proposal, with UK partner organisation, to Darwin Initiative or elsewhere, to study » close inshore at the bases of cliffs, there is marine invertebrates (previous studies rock with a coating of seaweed and date from 1800s). molluscs, usually dropping off steeply and • Consider needs for studies on marine often pitted with crevices and caves; plant species. (1983 study – 63 species of seaweeds; previous work in 1800). » the rocky drop-offs end either in fairly flat, • Review information need and potential sandy areas or areas of rubble and algal methodology for marine information on cobbles; windward side of Island. » the steep rock faces and numerous caves • Urgently acquire baseline data on offshore harbour schools of fish, corals, sea-fans, fish stocks.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 26 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
spiny lobster and occasional moray eels. The steep cliffs and small islets around the island support relatively small but important colonies of seabirds (important given that the next piece of land is at Ascension Island, 1,127kms to the north). Pan-tropical spotted dolphins congregate around the island on a seasonal basis, and there are irregular sightings of a range of other cetaceans throughout the year. Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate), and green turtle (Chelonia mydas), occur around the island but are rarely observed; though historically, limited nesting has taken place at Sandy Bay. Fishing for large pelagics typically takes place in the upper reaches of the water column in waters of between 100 and 200m in depth. Baitfish (Decapterus spp.) are netted from the surface of the sea (using hand-held one metre diameter hoop / scoop nets) in waters with a depth of some 10 to 20m. Pole & line fishing for shoaling skipjack tends to be located in inshore areas, within 0.5 and 2km of the shore. Trolling is undertaken when moving to and from grounds, with the lure or bait set a matter of metres below the sea surface. St Helena, as an Overseas Territory of the UK, is signatory to those international agreements to which the UK is a signatory. Related to its commitments under such agreements, it is also signatory to an environmental compact with the UK in the form of an Environmental Charter. St Helena has been the recipient of extensive environmental management planning, through the development of a Biodiversity Management Plan, a Sustainable Development Plan, and a wide range of more narrowly based initiatives intended to maintain and rebuild the environmental quality and diversity of the island’s fauna and flora. Of relevance to the current fishery assessment are programmes to monitor and manage local seabird populations, including nesting sites, to monitor cetacean and turtle sightings, and to strengthen management in respect of the sustainable harvesting of marine animals in the inshore zone – grouper, other groundfish, lobsters (see Box 1). There are also initiatives to strengthen detection and deterrence of illegal fishing in St Helena’s EEZ. In all strategic planning documents relating to management of the marine and coastal environment, assessment of the environmental impacts of local commercial fishing for pelagic species has not identified any areas of significant concern. In addition, whilst there has been greater focus on issues associated with the terrestrial environment, these have been adjudged as of a more serious nature, and the environmental risks associated with the island’s marine environment have been identified, in context, as minor.
4.2 Bycatch (retained and discarded)
The pelagic fishing methods of pole & line, and rod & line and troll fishing are used to target the three large tuna species of bigeye, yellowfin and albacore, and the small skipjack tuna. Wahoo is also a targeted species, caught mainly by troll. A number of other species are occasionally caught as incidental catches using these fishing techniques, including large cavally (Pseudocaranx dentex), large dolphin fish (Coryphaena spp.), less frequently bill fish, and still less frequently pelagic sharks. It should be noted that pole & line fishing for skipjack is a “clean” fishery, the only bycatch being occasional small yellowfin mixing with the skipjack shoals.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 27 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
With the exception of some sharks, virtually all bycatch is retained and either sold to the SHFC or retained by the fishermen for home consumption. Baitfish are caught each day prior to relocation to the fishing grounds. Fish are attracted to the boat using a watered mix of minced fish flesh, and the fish are scooped up using a hand held hoop / scoop net. Perhaps a half a dozen or a dozen fish are caught at each scoop, and these are placed in an onboard livebait tank. Typically between 50 and 100 fish are caught to support a day’s fishing. Three species of round scad (Decapterus spp.) make up livebait, with actual species makeup varying seasonally. Juvenile round scad are caught in this way on a seasonal basis to support the skipjack pole and line fishery. There is no bycatch in the baitfish fishery. Table 7 shows the long list of species that are occasionally caught as bycatch. Table 8 presents details of the volumes of these other species purchased by the SHFC. Table 9 gives an indication of the frequency with which bycatch species are landed. Table 7 – Target and bycatch species
rod & line & line rod trolling pole & line fishing baitfishing Target species large pelagics Bigeye Thunns obsesus *** * Yellowfin Thunnus albacares *** * Albacore Thunnus alalunga *** * Skipjack Katsuwonus pelamis * *** Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri * *** small pelagics Kingston Decapterus macarellus * Stonebrass D. muroadsi * Summer Stonebrass D. punctatus * Mackerel Scomber japonicus Bycatch species sharks Mackerel Shark Carcharhinus * * Mako Shark Isurus oxyrinchus * * Blue Shark Prionace galauca * * Thresher Shark Alopias superciliosus * * Hammerhead Shark Sphyrna sp. * * billfish Atlantic sailfish Istiophorus albicans * * Swordfish Xiphias gladius * * Black marlin Makaira indica * * Atlantic blue marlin Makaira nigricans * * White Marlin Tetrapturus albidus * *
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 28 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD other Dorado Coryphaena equiselis * * Cavalley Pseudocaranx dentex * * Yellowtail Seriola Ialandi * * Filefish Canthodermis sufflamen *
Table 8 - Landings from pelagic fisheries (tonnes) Species 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Tuna 86 97 163 235 311 451 241 216 yellowfin ... 70 158 226 255 363 ...... bigeye ... 5 4 7 18 25 ... 15 albacore ... 2 3 2 35 62 45 96 Skipjack 205 63 178 317 321 88 109 45 Wahoo 22 25 18 17 11 20 13 17 Marlin 3 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 Shark 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 Cavalley 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Dorado 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 Yellow tail 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Areas of concern with regard to retained and discarded bycatch relate to the management of interactions with billfish and shark species. Whilst the scale of interaction is evidently limited, the stocks of a number of these species (notably marlins) are considered over-fished or at risk of being over-fished. For the sharks there are concerns that the combination of low fecundity and indeterminate mortality across the Atlantic arising from fishing activities may threaten the stocks of these species. Where species are listed as threatened under CITES legislation, or offered particular protection under UK or St Helena legislation, the impact of fishing activity is addressed under ETP interactions (P2.3). For other species, billfish interactions are addressed under retained bycatch (P2.1), and discards, mainly of sharks, are addressed under P2.2. In these latter cases, assessment has been informed by use of the MSC risk-based methodology – reported on in the Appendix 3 - Scoring Tables, and workings shown at Appendix 4.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 29 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Table 9– 2009 (Jan to Oct) purchases of bycatch species from the St Helena commercial fleet Billfish Numbers Common Occasional Rare Very Rare blue marlin 85 X black marlin 5 X white marlin ... X swordfish ... X sailfish 9 X Shark Numbers Common Occasional Rare Very Rare mackerel 16 X mako 7 X thresher ... X blue ... X hammerhead ... X other Numbers Common Occasional Rare Very Rare dorado 134 X Source: from SHFC / Argos Atlantic Cold Stores purchase records In contrast to assessment under Principle 1, assessment of the bycatch interactions is made on the basis of the specific impacts of the activities of the St Helena fleet on the environment.
4.2.1 Bycatch - retained
The St. Helena tuna fisheries retain limited amounts of wahoo, marlin, and small sharks. While ICCAT monitors and assesses marlin stocks, and southern blue sharks to limited degree, no assessment of wahoo or other southern sharks occurs. Blue and white marlins are designated by ICCAT as overfished and well below BMSY. ICCAT has not set limit reference points for these stocks. Southern blue shark appears largely unfished. Insufficient information exists to make a statement about the status of wahoo relative to any reference point. St. Helena reported 2006 landings of 20t of wahoo, 2t of billfishes, and 0.5t of sharks. It is unlikely that, at this scale of activity, the St Helena fishery contributes substantially to the overfished status of marlins, or influences the status of wahoo and shark stocks, relative to total removals. Therefore, the fishery would not impede recovery of any of the retained stocks. ICCAT has implemented management recommendations for reductions in blue and white marlin catch, including catch limits for purse seine and longline vessels, and recommendations that purse seine and longline vessels release with minimal injury all marlin caught alive. Artisanal fisheries that take marlin are not included in this recommendation. Analysis by ICCAT indicates that marlin rebuilding has the potential to occur with the current management structure but it requires verification. Stock declines for white and black marlin
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 30 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
have begun to stabilise, but current fishing mortality exceeds FMSY for black marlin and is approximately at FMSY for white marlin; neither situation gives confidence that stock recovery will occur. ICCAT has no strategy for sharks other than maintaining on-board fin weight to body rate ratios and reporting the ratios. Catch and effort data for managed species are reported to ICCAT by all contracting parties on an annual basis, but this does not allow for in-season management and rapid response. Stock assessments indicate fairly high uncertainty for marlin. St. Helena has good catch records of all retained species landed, recorded at the St. Helena Fisheries Corporation. St. Helena has no specific strategy for retained species other than complying with ICCAT recommendations. Whilst in the round the small scale of St Helena fisheries is such as to have little impact on the stocks of these bycatch species, good practice suggests that there should be strategies and practices in place to, at the least, ensure that significant changes in bycatch levels (that might warrant management action) could be identified.
4.2.2 Bycatch - discarded
St. Helena fishermen report that little bycatch occurs. The fishermen attract schools of tuna to the boat with chum, and sight-fish for the tuna. Unwanted species can often be avoided and released alive if caught. Little discarding occurs as fishermen use nearly all species caught. Occasionally, catch and release of small sharks occurs. Blue shark, which is not classified as overfished by ICCAT, is one of the species released. Pole and line fisheries for tuna are generally known to have minimal bycatch problems. ICCAT Contracting Parties must make annual declarations of catch and bycatch statistics. Largely in response to concerns related to the potential for and impacts of CITES listings of various marine fish species, ICCAT established a Sub-Committee on Bycatch (now merged into the Sub-Committee on Ecosystems) in 1996 to provide scientific advice on issues relating to bycatch resulting from fishing effort directed at Atlantic tuna and tuna-like species. The Sub-Committee guides research and analytical activities on bycatch (especially of sharks) by member nations and cooperating parties, recommends methodological adaptations to national statistical data collection systems in order to better quantify bycatch, and coordinates data gathering and cooperation with other fishery organisations on bycatch issues. The Sub-committee on Ecosystems (with the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics) addresses bycatch as one of its tasks, and oversees the collection of data to support this task. It recommends that priority should be given to: » improving conventional statistics (catch, effort, size) of ICCAT target species that are caught incidentally in non-targeted fisheries; » monitoring and improving information on interactions with non-ICCAT target species, with emphasis on those species of interest to the Commission and for which no Species Group has been established (e.g., sea turtles and sea birds).
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 31 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
St. Helena collects data on retained catches, but not on discards, and as a result does not have the documentation with which to determine the risk of local fishing activity to bycatch species. Good practice suggests that this situation be corrected.
4.3 ETP Species
The St Helena Endangered Species Protection Ordinance provides specific protection for a range of fauna and flora. Those of relevance to fishing and the marine environment are listed in Table 10. This legislation makes it illegal to catch or kill these animals. Table 10 – Relevant species protected under St Helena
Common name Scientific name Encounterability
Reptiles Green turtle Chelonia mydas rarely seen Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata rarely seen Cetaceans Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stenalla attenuata common Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus small numbers present Spinner dolphin Stenalla longirostris not seen for some time Seabirds Trophy bird or red-billed Phaethon aethereus encountered in fishery; will dive on surface tropicbird bait baitX Wideawake, sooty tern or Sterna fuscata encountered in fishery; will dive on surface eggbird bait Blackbird or brown noddy Anous stolidus encountered in fishery; will dive on surface bait
Blackbird or noddy bird Anous minutus encountered in fishery; will dive on surface atlantious bait White bird or fairy tern Gygis alba fairly common Sooty shearwater Puffinus griseus rare / accidental – near-threatened Little shearwater Puffinus lherminieri fairly common Pickering or Maderian storm Oceanodroma castro fairly common petrel castro White-faced storm petrel Pelagodroma marina rare / accidental Lesser frigate bird Fregata ariel occasional Great frigate bird Fregata minor occasional Masked (blue-faced) booby Sula dactylatra occasional Brown booby Sula leucogaster fairly common Red-footed booby Sula sula rare / accidental Gull Larus sp. fairly common
Source: Chapter 75 of St Helena Ordinance; Avibase; “The Fish and fisheries of Saint Helena Islands” by Alasdair Edwards
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 32 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is minimal interaction with ETP species given the gear used and location of the fishery in the water column, therefore it is assumed that the fishery does not pose any significant risk to ETP species. ICCAT subscribes to the International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries and the IPOA for Conservation and Management of Sharks. The Contracting Parties of ICCAT agree to provide FAO with the biological data, including stock abundance and the magnitude of by-catch of certain sharks, seabirds and turtles, and agree to release bycatch alive to the extent possible. Contracting Parties report annually on interactions with ETP species and research and monitoring efforts undertaken to protect them. St. Helena has a prohibition on harming or landing sea turtles, marine mammals and seabirds. St. Helena complies with international requirements. St. Helena has a sighting program for some marine mammals, but does not collect data on interactions; interactions with ETP species may be reported anecdotally, but not officially. Fishermen actively avoid interaction with any of these species. In the case of the seabirds, however, most of these species will search the sea surface for shoals of fish to feed on, and a smaller number of species will come close enough to the fishing boats to dive on the bait used to attract fish to the boat. Fishermen use every effort to distract these birds away from the baited hooks, but occasionally a bird is hooked. Under such circumstances it is brought to the boat, unhooked and released, but on occasion it is necessary to kill a bird where the hook taken too far down the gullet. The birds that this affects are the trophy tropicbird, the sooty tern, the brown noddy and the noddy bird. Such mortality is associated with the use of pole & line gear when seeking to take yellowfin and albacore that has been brought to the surface through the use of live bait. It is not associated with the more intense and focused pole & line fishing for skipjack tuna. The colonies of these birds found around the island are formally monitored by the Dept. of Agric. and Nat. Res. marine conservation office, and programmes are in place to strengthen their numbers. There is, however, no programme to record fishing related mortalities, or to assess the risk that fishing poses to bird numbers – and there is no attempt to establish what scale of fishing related bird mortality constitutes acceptable and unacceptable activity. Fishermen actively participate in the reporting programmes of sightings of cetaceans (other than the pan-tropical spotted dolphin and the bottlenose dolphins regularly seen around the island) and turtles, and anything else unusual. Whilst the occasional seasonal harvesting of dolphins took place up until the 1970s, there is no evidence of any fishery related dolphin deaths in recent decades. There was also the occasional harvesting of turtles in the C 19th and early C 20th, but there is no evidence of fishing related turtle deaths in recent decades.
4.4 Habitat
The Sub-committee on Ecosystems deals with a wide range of issues, including habitat and an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. The St Helena fishery uses pelagic gear. Pole-and-line
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 33 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD fishing operations and gear have negligible habitat effects since the gear makes no contact with the bottom. The conservation concern for pole-and-line gear types is low. The Sub-committee on Ecosystems encompasses tasks related to monitoring, research, modelling and advice. Sufficient information exists to demonstrate that the gear is not close to the seabed, and so no damage occurs.
4.5 Ecosystem Structure and Function
ICCAT has measures in place to preserve the trophic structure and function of the ecosystem, by protecting certain sharks, seabirds, turtles, and mammals, and by maintaining harvested stocks at or near BMSY. However, controversy exists around the overall declines of large predators and possible large impacts on the ecosystem, General information is available on the trophic position, status and relationships of most tunas in the food web, although it is not clear if ICCAT collects and analyses trophic relationships for tuna in the ICCAT area. Sub-adult and adult tuna are opportunistic carnivores that occupy a high trophic level. Overfishing tuna species would reduce natural predation in the ecosystem, which could lead to an imbalance in the trophic structure. Within the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics is the Sub-committee on Ecosystems (created to join the sub-committees on Bycatches and Environment in 2005) that deals with a wide range of issues, including an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries and of oceanographic forcing on tuna biology and fisheries. However, it is unclear if ICCAT conducts formal ecosystem analysis, for example in the form of Ecopath/Ecosim, to derive quantitative estimates of trophic structure. St. Helena has no documentation on ecosystem impacts, but the small scale of the fishery is such that it is unlikely to harm the trophic structure or impede any recovery.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 34 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
5. Administrative context (P3) 5.1 Governance
As a British Territory, St. Helena operates under an established legal system that recognises the rights and privileges of it citizens. St Helena is a British Overseas Territory that is governed under the provisions of the St Helena Constitution of 1988. This provides that there shall be a Governor and Commander-in-Chief, and an Executive and a Legislative Council. The Executive Council members are elected for nomination by the elected members of the Legislative Council, and subsequently appointed by the Governor. Accordingly they can be removed from office only by the votes of a majority of the members of the Legislative Council. The law on the Island is a mixture of St. Helena Ordinances and English Law. All however are based on English Law, adapted to suit local circumstances. The Government can and has passed laws to manage natural resources, and has established management bodies to implement regulations. While there are no aboriginal or indigenous people on the Island, the Government is very aware of the customary use of marine products, as the sea is a resource for residents. St. Helena strives to resolve disputes during the consultation process. Barring informal resolution, any legal challenges would be dealt with through the Courts and would be dealt with under the Fishery Limits Ordinance. Challenges are rare to non-existent. The coordination of the management of Atlantic tuna stocks and fisheries is vested in the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The UK (and by association its Overseas Territories) is a Contracting Party to ICCAT. The management system for south Atlantic tunas fished by St Helena is a combination of overall management from ICCAT and management by St. Helena of the fishery within its area of jurisdiction. Both components must contribute to the management of a sustainable fishery. ICCAT considers input and opinions from all Contracting Parties before implementing new guidelines and regulations, and the roles and responsibilities of each Party are clearly described. Additionally, the Contracting Parties agree that there should be co-operation between the Commission and other international fisheries commissions and scientific organisations that might contribute to the work of the Commission. The Commission may enter into agreements with such commissions and organisations, and has one such agreement with FAO. Four organisations are involved in consultations affecting St. Helena fisheries: » the Directorate of Fisheries represents the Government ; » the Fishermen’s Association represents the fishermen; » the Fisheries Corporation, a statutory body, purchases all fish caught by the commercial fleet; » the Environmental Advisory Consultative Forum (EACF), an NGO, brings in citizens interested in fisheries and other environmental issues. These groups consult as needed. The Directorate of Fisheries regularly attends meetings of the Fishermen’s Association and works through any regulatory changes with the Association. To date, the lack of active management of the tuna fisheries has not required
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 35 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
much involvement. The Directorate of Fisheries regularly attends meetings of the EACF. The Fisheries Corporation occasionally attends EACF meetings as necessary. Thus, the groups with interest in fisheries maintain regular contact. The public in general is informed of any fishery issues through advertisements in papers and the Government convenes a public forum for discussions of issues as they arise; any member of the public may get involved in the process. ICCAT plays a pivotal role in the management of Atlantic tunas, and therefore it is appropriate to give some further information on its workings. In addition, “In response to concerns raised by the international community about the sustainable management of high seas fisheries, including where regional fisheries management organisations and arrangements (RFMOs) exist, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), at its 2007 annual meeting agreed to conduct an independent review of its own performance against its objectives.”4 The findings of this review were published in 2009. Key findings, quoted from the Executive Summary of the review report, include the following: “ICCAT’s objective is embedded in the preamble of its Convention finalised in 1966. The preamble states: “The Governments …considering their mutual interest in the populations of tuna and tuna like fishes found in the Atlantic Ocean, and desiring to cooperate in maintaining the populations of these fishes at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch for food and other purposes”. ICCAT’s objective is therefore to maintain populations of tunas and tuna like fishes at levels that will permit maximum sustainable yield (MSY). “…. “The Panel made the following general observations: » ICCAT has developed reasonably sound conservation and fisheries management practices, which, if fully implemented and complied with by Contracting Parties, Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, Entities and Fishing Entities (CPCs), would have been expected to be effective in managing the fisheries under ICCAT’s purview. » The ICCAT Convention should be reviewed, modernised, or otherwise supplemented, to reflect current approaches to fisheries management. » The ICCAT standing committee and panel structure is sound and the committees provide timely advice to ICCAT. However, the Panel expressed strong reservations on the performance of the Compliance Committee (CC). » The Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) provides sound advice to the Commission members operating under significant difficulties largely caused by CPCs failing to provide timely and accurate data. » The performance of the Secretariat is sound and well regarded as both efficient and effective by CPCs.
4 from the Executive Summary of the Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 36 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» The fundamental problems and challenges that ICCAT faces in managing sustainably the fisheries under its purview are not unique; other tuna RFMOs also face them, but the size of the ICCAT membership adds more difficulties. “The Panel made the following general assessment of ICCAT performance: » Fundamentally ICCAT’s performance to date does not meet its objectives for several of the species under its purview. » ICCAT’s failure to meet its objectives is due in large part to the lack of compliance by many of its CPCs. » CPCs have consistently failed to provide timely and accurate data and to implement monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) arrangements on nationals and national companies. » The judgement of the international community will be based largely on how ICCAT manages fisheries on bluefin tuna (BFT). ICCAT CPCs’ performance in managing fisheries on bluefin tuna particularly in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea is widely regarded as an international disgrace and the international community which has entrusted the management of this iconic species to ICCAT deserve better performance from ICCAT than it has received to date. » There are concerns about transparency within ICCAT both in decision making and in resource allocation. “Most of the problems and challenges ICCAT faces would be simple to fix if CPCs developed the political will to fully implement and adhere to the letter and spirit of the rules and recommendations of ICCAT.”
5.2 Decision-Making Processes
Decisions at ICCAT are taken by a majority of the Contracting Parties, each Contracting Party having one vote. Two-thirds of the Contracting Parties shall constitute a quorum. Committees and panels, comprised of Contracting Party representatives, present options and recommendations for decisions and resolutions. ICCAT has an explicit and transparent dispute settlement process, each of the items below are described in further detail in the Convention. Member States are free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention: » the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI; » the International Court of Justice; » an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII; » a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein. Decisions in St. Helena are made on an ad hoc basis through consultation. Consultation leads to the drafting of recommendations and information for the Natural Resources
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 37 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Committee, which is the beginning of the political process. Natural Resources Committee recommendations go the Executive Council for final decision. The overall structure and scale of management of the St Helena fisheries is commensurate with its size, and is as follows: » There is a dedicated Senior Fisheries Officer who reports directly to the Head of the Dept. of Agriculture and Natural Resources. In the same office there is also a dedicated Marine Scientific Officer with responsibilities for monitoring the marine environment – including monitoring programmes on turtles, seabird populations and cetaceans. » The St Helena Fisheries Corporation is a statutory body responsible for day-to-day management of fishing activities, the reception and handling of all fish landed by the commercial fleet, and the first hand sale of all fish on behalf of fishermen and payment of fishermen accordingly. Whilst it formerly managed and operated its own plant, processing and trading activities, these functions are now licensed by it to Argos Atlantic Cold Stores; the SHFC has five full-time employees, and is governed by a board. Together, these two structures are responsible for management of the island’s fisheries.
5.3 Long-Term Fishing Objectives
ICCAT Members agree to co-operate in maintaining the populations of those stocks under the management of ICCAT at levels that will permit the maximum sustainable catch for food and other purposes. The Commission cooperates with several international agreements, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Agreement for the implementation of the Provisions of the Convention relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas which promote sustainable fishing and the Precautionary Approach. The St. Helena Directorate of Fisheries was established in 1990 to administer foreign and local vessel licensing and to provide an independent body to carry out various Governmental responsibilities. These include: » the collection of data for International Organisations; » the issue of local and foreign fishing licences; » the monitoring of stocks; » recommendations for conservation and legislation; » provision of independent advice for offshore licensing and development. The Government’s St. Helena Strategy states that the “… environment is probably the Island’s single most valuable asset, but it is also delicate. Its conservation, preservation and enhancement are crucial. Some key areas include … protecting the marine environment, ensuring a sustainable fishing industry …”. Despite this, there are no explicit statements on
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 38 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
the objectives and strategies for management of St Helena’s fisheries, though extensive research, planning and development work has been undertaken in respect of the island’s fisheries. This situation is not inconsistent with the small scale and nature of the island’s fishing industry, but by the same token a clear public expression of policy intent should not be difficult to draft.
5.4 Incentives to Sustainable Fishing
ICCAT has passed a resolution that fishing effort should not increase. This sets the stage to minimise disincentives (perverse subsidies) to sustainable fishing. The St. Helena Government does not provide incentives or disincentives that affect sustainable fishing. Occasionally, the Fisheries Corporation provides free fuel in periods of low catches. The Fisheries Corporation imports fishing gear for sale at low mark-up. The Fishermen’s Association makes payments to fishers in times of need using funds previously contributed by fishermen and other funds. These funds do no cause an increase in fishing effort that is detrimental to sustainable fishing.
5.5 Fishery-Specific Objectives
ICCAT has set strict capacity, catch and effort limits for tuna and incidental catch which must be followed by Contracting Parties. It has strict rules pertaining to marine pollution, environment and habitat protection. ICCAT has strict guidelines to mitigate and prevent catch of seabirds, turtles, sharks and mammals, and bycatch. The St. Helena management system does not have explicit objectives pertaining to harvest control rules and management of catches, or management of environmental interactions – particularly incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation, and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings. Complying with ICCAT requirements does, however, provide implicit objectives. The Directorate of Fisheries is tasked with the sustainable management of local and offshore fisheries in order to maximise benefits for all St Helenians. The strategic objectives of the Country Policy Plan are: » to sustainably manage all marine and coastal renewable and non-renewable resources so as to optimise benefits to all St Helenians; » to encourage private sector investors, especially joint ventures, to exploit seamount and offshore fisheries so as to maximise benefits to all St Helenians; » to maximise revenue from the sale of fishing licences without prejudice to the sustainability of the fishery resource; and » to assist the St Helena Fisheries Corporation in maintaining or improving its competitive advantage through application of high quality standards and through investment in facilities which will enable it to optimise benefits from seasonal gluts in the supply of raw products.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 39 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
5.6 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
St Helena monitors all landings, and submits regular statistical reports to ICCAT, as appropriate. ICCAT has established requirements for monitoring, control and surveillance for members. The Contracting Parties, through the Commission, need to establish observation and inspection programmes to ensure compliance with ICCAT conservation and management measures. The Contracting Parties agree to take all action necessary to ensure the enforcement of this Convention. Each Contracting Party is required to transmit to the Commission, biennially or at such other times as may be required by the Commission, a statement of the action taken by it for these purposes. Traditional monitoring, control, and surveillance does not occur at St. Helena for the tuna fisheries: no observers, no patrols, no overflights, but good dockside monitoring does occur at the Fisheries Corporation. The lack of regulations for the fishery does not leave much to monitor. The small size of vessels, remoteness of St. Helena, and a single landing point suggest that non-compliance would be difficult.
5.7 Research Plan
ICCAT has resolved that it is essential that all countries fishing Atlantic tuna resources should collect adequate statistics on catch and fishing effort and the necessary biological data, and make available for publication the statistical and related economic data with a view to enabling the ICCAT to fulfil its functions adequately. This St Helena complies with, though there are some recent years for which St Helena landings data do not appear to be included in the ICCAT statistical data-set. ICCAT has a Standing Committee on Research and Statistics on which each member country of the Commission may be represented. The Committee develops and recommends to the Commission such policies and procedures in the collection, compilation, analysis and dissemination of fishery statistics as may be necessary to ensure that the Commission has available at all times complete, current and equivalent statistics on fishery activities in the Convention area. St Helena is party to, and responds to, such outputs of the Committee. St. Helena does not undertake any specific research in relation to its tuna fisheries (at its scale of operation it would be largely inappropriate and unproductive to do so), but provides information to ICCAT as requested. It does, however, keep detailed records of fish landed, and records the size of a sample of fish on a monthly basis. In addition it operates programmes to monitor seabird populations, and to record turtle and cetacean sightings.
5.8 Evaluation of Management Systems
Each Contracting Party to ICCAT must provide an Annual Report to ICCAT containing two parts: » Part I relating to information on fisheries, research and statistics; and
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 40 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Part II relating to information on management implementation and other related activities. St Helena complies with this. The Commission’s Standing Committee on Research and Statistics keeps under continuous review the research programmes in progress in the Convention area, and develops and recommends to the Commission from time to time changes in existing programmes, or such new programs as may be deemed desirable. There are four panels responsible for keeping under review the species, group of species, or geographic area under its purview, and for collecting scientific and other information relating thereto. Based on investigations from the SCRS, Panels may propose to the Commission recommendations for joint action by the Contracting Parties. The Conservation and Management Measures Compliance Committee reviews all aspects of compliance with ICCAT conservation and management measures in the ICCAT Convention Area, with particular reference to compliance with such measures by ICCAT Contracting Parties. Every two years, the Commission submits a report on its work and findings to all member countries of the Commission.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 41 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
6. Background to the Evaluation 6.1 Assessment team
Evaluation Leader: Crick Carleton – P3 specialist Crick Carleton, chief fisheries assessor for FCI / Nautilus is an experienced industry analyst with some thirty years experience in fisheries management, policy and development, drawing on academic qualifications in both natural sciences and economics (zoology and technological economics), and work as a fishery officer and full-time consultant. He is the founder and Chief Executive of Nautilus Consultants and has actively supported the evolution of the MSC standard. He participated in the Airlie House revision of the MSC’s Principles and Criteria to the current standard, and has contributed to debate on its application to small-scale fisheries and aquaculture. He is an experienced facilitator, works extensively with fishing communities and businesses, and regularly mediates in a range of sensitive management and development situations. He was based on the island of St Helena as part of a tuna research project back in the late 1970s. Expert Advisor: Dr Paul Medley – P1 specialist Dr Medley is an experienced stock assessment specialist, and is the team’s P1 expert - analysis of the fishery management systems in place, and assessment of stock health. He is a fishery biologist and population dynamicist with particular experience with respect to pelagic (tuna) fisheries, shellfish and small-scale fisheries, and wide experience with MSC pre-assessment and full assessments. Dr Paul Medley is an experienced fishery scientist and population analyst and modeller, with wide knowledge and experience in the assessment of pelagic stocks (amongst a range of marine fish stocks and ecosystems). He has travelled widely and worked with a range of fishery systems and biological stocks, both as principal researcher and as evaluator. He is familiar with MSC assessment procedures, including development of guidelines for certification of small scale, data poor fisheries. He has been involved as a Principle 1 expert on more MSC assessments than anyone else to date. Expert Advisor: Tristan Southall – P2 specialist Tristan Southall is an experienced fisheries assessor who has worked as both Principle 2 and Principle 3 expert on a number of previous MSC assessments. He has also been involved in the development and trialling of a new MSC assessment methodology, based on risk analysis, for use in data deficient situations. When not assessing the sustainability of fisheries Tristan specialises in fishing and marine industry consultancy, combining detailed understanding of marine ecosystems with broad experience of fishing and aquaculture industry systems, infrastructure and management. This provides him with an informed position which balances the needs of marine ecosystems, biodiversity and wider environment with the practicalities of the industry operation. Bridging these two important areas enables sustainably-minded consultancy, able to interpret and advise upon the impacts of different management decisions on both marine ecosystems and economics. Expert Advisor: Martin Gill – certification specialist Martin Gill, the Managing Director of FCI, coordinated the assessment process, and participated as a team member during the assessment as required. Martin is a marine biologist and fisheries specialist, a former staff member of the Copenhagen-based Eurofish
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 42 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
international fishery development organisation, and is a shareholder and board member of Food Certification International. He was a former Editor of World Fishing magazine for 5 years and has contributed since 1992 to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year with the commercial fisheries section. He also worked for five years with FAO Eastfish, a project providing a fish marketing and investment service for Central and Eastern Europe based in Copenhagen and was the founding editor of the Eurofish magazine. Martin was appointed as Executive Director of Food Certification (Scotland) Ltd in June 2002 and led a successful management buyout in early 2007.
6.2 Public Consultation
Public announcements of the progression of the assessment were made as follows: Date Purpose Media 18th Feb 2009 notification of commencement of assessment notification on MSC website 13th May 2009 nomination of Assessment Team candidates notification on MSC website 29th May 2009 draft assessment tree released for comment notification on MSC website 29th May 2009 announcement of assessment visit and direct email, notification on MSC convening of stakeholder consultation meeting website 2nd Jun 2009 notification of intent to use the RBF in addition notification on MSC website to the default assessment tree Jun 2009 solicitation of inputs to stakeholder email, phone and mail consultation and assessment 8th–16th Jul 2009 assessment visit meetings 13th May 2010 notification of Proposed Peer Reviewers notification on MSC website 6th August 2010 notification of Public Comment Draft Report notification on MSC website xxxxxxxxxxx notification of Final Report notification on MSC website
6.3 Stakeholder Consultation
Stakeholder consultees identified in respect the assessment of this fishery include: St Helena fishery sector » St Helena fishermen » St. Helena Fishermen’s Association » St. Helena Fisheries Corporation » Argos Atlantic Cold Stores Ltd » St. Helena Canning Company Fishery management » Directorate of Fisheries » FCO
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 43 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» DFID » ICCAT » SEAFO Conservation and academic oriented groups that have a direct interest in the tuna fisheries include: » Environmental Advisory Consultative Forum » St Helena National Trust » JNCC » St Helena National Trust
6.4 Interview Programme
During an eight day site visit to the island of St Helena, the Assessment Team Leader, Crick Carleton, met with a wide range of stakeholders, made visits to the main elements of the infrastructure of the sector, and undertook direct observation of the fishery, joining one of the fishing teams for a day’s fishing. The following individuals and organisations were interviewed during the site visit: St Helena Development Agency Linda Houston Chief Executive of the St Helena Development Agency
Rob Midwinter Senior business Advisor St Helena Development Agency the board of the SHDA St Helena Development Agency St Helena Fisheries Administration Darren Duncan Chief Agriculture and Natural Dept. Agric. & Nat. Res. Resources Officer Gerald Benjamin Senior Fisheries Officer Dept. Agric. & Nat. Res. Emma Bennett former Marine Scientific Officer Dept. Agric. & Nat. Res. Terry Richards Managing Director St Helena Fisheries Corporation Les Baldwin Administrator St Helena Fisheries Corporation Fishery industry representatives Trevor Thomas Chair St Helena Fishermen’s Association the board of the SHFA St Helena Fishermen’s Association fishermen St Helena Fishermen’s Association Melvyn O’Bey Plant Manager Argos Atlantic Cold Stores owner and manager K&G Williams – fish traders Eileen Wallace owner and manager St Helena Canning Company Doug Wallace former owner St Helena Canning Company
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 44 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
John McDonald service engineer St Helena Canning Company St Helena Government Andrew Gurr Governor St Helena Govt Andrew Wells Chief Secretary St Helena Govt various councillors (~8) St Helena Govt Paul Blessington Government Economist St Helena Govt Ann Muir Social Advisor St Helena Govt Dr Corinda Essex Chief Development Officer St Helena Govt Isobel Peters Environment St Helena Govt Carol George Chief Administrative Health and St Helena Govt Social Services Officer Georgina Young Senior Environmental Health St Helena Govt Officer Len Coleman Senior Officer, GIS Section St Helena Govt Non-governmental environmental interests Dr Rebecca Cairns-Wicks Director St Helena National Trust Andrew Darlow St Helena National Trust Eddy Duff Wirebird Conservation Officer St Helena National Trust Graham Sim former Senior Fisheries Officer St Helena marine tour guide
Contact was also established with the following: Anna Balance Natural Resources Advisor DFID Scott Parnell international fisheries obligations FCO Tara Pelembe Overseas Territories officer JNCC ICCAT SEAFO Richard Beales UK-based Fisheries Advisor to the St St Helena Govt Helena Government (ex-DFID Natural Resource Advisor)
6.5 Other Certification Evaluations and Harmonisation
No other assessments of Atlantic Ocean tuna fisheries have been undertaken or are underway at the time of commencement of this assessment.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 45 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
6.6 Information Sources Used
The following form the core of the documentation referred to in the preparation of this assessment. Specific references associated with the assessment are cited in the Scoring Tables that form Appendix 3 to this report. » A wide range of documentation on the fisheries of St Helena exists reaching back to development work undertaken by the British and St Helena Governments in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, including mission reports by DFID and FCO officers visiting the island on fishery development business. » Since the late 1990s there has been significant work undertaken in strategic and development planning in respect of environmental and natural resource management and conservation and the development of Biodiversity Action Plan and the Sustainable Development Strategy. » Since the late 1990s a wide range of exploratory and planning investigations has been undertaken in relation to the proposal to build an airport on the island. Key amongst these is the St Helena Airport Environmental Statement prepared by Faber Maunsell / AECOM. » ICCAT has a well-developed programme of publications, including Statistical Bulletins, Biennial Reports, Stock Assessments, Research Reports and Committee Reports. These have all, to one degree or another, been referred to in undertaking this assessment, supplemented by additional administrative documentation provided by the Senior Fisheries Officer and the General Manager of the St Helena Fisheries Corporation, and others interviewed during the site visit to St Helena.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 46 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
7. Scoring 7.1 Scoring Methodology
The MSC is dedicated to promoting “well-managed” and “sustainable” fisheries, and the MSC initiative focuses on identifying such fisheries through means of independent third- party assessments and certification. Once certified, fisheries are awarded the opportunity to utilise an MSC promoted eco-label to gain economic advantages in the marketplace. Through certification and eco-labelling the MSC works to promote and encourage better management of world fisheries, many of which have been suggested to suffer from poor management. The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the fishery is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles: » MSC Principle 1 - Resource Sustainability » MSC Principle 2 - Ecosystem Sustainability » MSC Principle 3 - Management Systems A fuller description of the MSC Ps & Cs and a graphical representation of the assessment tree is presented as Appendix 1 to this report. The MSC Principles and Criteria provide the overall requirements necessary for certification of a sustainably managed fishery. To facilitate assessment of any given fishery against this standard, these criteria are further split into sub-criteria. Sub-criteria represent separate areas of important information (e.g. Sub-criterion 1.1.1. requires a sufficient level of information on the target species and stock, 1.1.2 requires information on the effects of the fishery on the stock and so on). These Sub-criteria, therefore, provide a detailed checklist of factors necessary to meet the MSC Criteria in the same way as the Criteria provide the factors necessary to meet each Principle. Below each Sub-criterion, individual ‘Performance Indicators’ (PIs) are identified. It is at this level that the performance of the fishery is measured. Altogether, assessment of this fishery against the MSC standard is achieved through measurement of 31 Performance Indicators. The Principles and their supporting Criteria, Sub-criteria and Performance Indicators that have been used by the assessment team to assess this fishery are incorporated into the scoring sheets (Appendix 3). Scoring of the attributes of this fishery against the MSC Ps & Cs involves the following process: » decision to use the MSC Default Assessment Tree contained within the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology (FAM v2); » decision to use the Risk Based Framework (RBF) for certain PIs where insufficient information is available for conventional assessment, and if so, nomination of which PIs this might apply to; » description of the justification as to why a particular score has been given to each sub-criterion; » allocation of a score (out of 100) to each Performance Indicator.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 47 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, the Scoring Guideposts are presented in the scoring table and describe the level of performance necessary to achieve 100 (represents the level of performance for a performance indicator that would be expected in a theoretically ‘perfect’ fishery), 80 (defines the unconditional pass mark for a Performance Indicator for that type of fishery), and 60 (defines the minimum, conditional pass mark for each performance indicator for that type of fishery). The Assessment Tree, Scoring Guideposts and scoring for the St Helena tuna fisheries are shown as Appendix 3 to this report. There are two, coupled, scoring requirements that constitute the Marine Stewardship Council’s minimum threshold for a sustainable fishery: » The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the MSC’s three Principles, based on the weighted average score for all Criteria and sub-criteria under each Principle; and » the fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each Performance Indicator. A score below 60 for a Performance Indicator would represent a level of performance that causes the fishery to automatically fail the assessment, unless performance is improved as a pre-condition to certification.
7.2 The Risk-Based Framework
To facilitate the assessment of fisheries against the MSC Ps & Cs for fisheries where the quality and quantity of information is not sufficient to allow application of the conventional assessment methodology for elements of Principles 1 and/or 2, a risk-based alternate approach has been outlined by the MSC. . This hybrid methodology is complex, but key elements of the approach are described in the following. Essentially, where information on a fishery or stock is insufficient to allow application of the conventional methodology, the risk-based alternate approach is triggered. In the first instance a number of key parameters are assessed to determine if it is reasonable to assume that, even in the absence of detailed information, the performance of the fishery against a particular Performance Indicator is unlikely to fall short of the MSC best industry practice threshold (i.e. a score of 80 or above). Where this is indicated, the Performance Indicator is scored based on the available, albeit limited, information, and the logic behind the assessment of low risk. A documentary assessment process is prescribed in the methodology to allow construction of this logic, based around assessments of scale, intensity and consequence (Scale Intensity Consequence Assessment - SICA). Where the available information is insufficient to allow determination that a score of 80 or above against a particular indicator is likely or can be stated with confidence, a more involved risk-based assessment of the likely impact of the fishery is made, based on assessment of the productivity versus susceptibility of the organisms or systems under scrutiny (Productivity Susceptibility Assessment – PSA). The resulting score either from the PSA or from the SICA (if above 80) is then used to score all relevant unscored performance indicators within the Principle.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 48 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Where a SICA or PSA has been required, the lack of information has been taken into account in the scoring, incorporating an appropriate level of precaution; the less the information available, the higher the perceived risk.
7.3 Scoring
The assessment team convened a scoring meeting from 12th to 15th October 2009, in Inverness, Scotland. The output of this meeting is shown in the scoring tables forming Appendix 3 to this report. The scores allocated to the assessment tree at Sub-criterion, Criterion and Principle levels are summarised in Fig 6. Where a score of below 80 has been allocated at Performance Indicator level – and thus triggering the placing of a condition to bring that element up to good industry practice – the score is shown in red. Throughout this assessment scoring is applied separately to each of the four tuna species included within the Unit of Certification. In the case of P1 this results in distinct and often divergent scores reflecting the different status of and approaches to stock assessment and management. In the cases of scoring under P2 and P3 there is the expectation that there will be limited / little difference between the fisheries for each species. In this case scoring has been applied in a generic fashion, followed by review of whether or not status, management or information relating to any of the fishing techniques / species fisheries focused vary in any way from this generic assessment. As indicated in the following table summarising scores, for P2 and P3 no such divergence from the generic score was registered. Fig 6: Summary of the scores Principle 1 – Stock Status / Harvest Control Rules BGE YLF ALB SKJ 1.1.1 Stock status 75 75 75 80 1.1.2 Outcome (status) Reference Points 75 75 75 75 1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding 80 80 80 na 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy 80 80 80 75 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools Management 60 60 60 60 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 80 80 80 70 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 85 80 80 80
Principle 2 – Wider Ecosystem Impacts BGE YLF ALB SKJ 2.1.1 Outcome (status) 75 75 75 75 2.1.2 Retained Species Management 80 80 80 80 2.1.3 Information 75 75 75 75 2.2.1 Outcome (status) 80 80 80 80 2.2.2 Bycatch Management 75 75 75 75 2.2.3 Information 75 75 75 75 2.3.1 Outcome (status) 80 80 80 80 2.3.2 ETP Species Management 80 80 80 80 2.3.3 Information 75 75 75 75 2.4.1 Outcome (status) 95 95 95 95 2.4.2 Habitats Management 95 95 95 95 2.4.3 Information 90 90 90 90
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 49 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
2.5.1 Outcome (status) 80 80 80 80 2.5.2 Ecosystem Management 80 80 80 80 2.5.3 Information 80 80 80 80
Principle 3 – Management / Governance BGE YLF ALB SKJ 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 75 75 75 75 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities Governance & Policy 80 80 80 80 3.1.3 Long term objectives 80 80 80 80 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 80 80 80 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 80 80 80 3.2.2 Decision making processes 75 75 75 75 Fishery-specific 3.2.3 Management System Compliance & enforcement 85 85 85 85 3.2.4 Research plan 85 85 85 85 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 85 85 85 85 Principle 1 76.5 75.8 75.8 74.4 Principle 2 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 Principle 3 80.4 80.4 80.4 80.4
Further details are provided below on those areas where current practices are considered to be below good industry practice. In all cases however, these are not sufficiently below good practice to warrant an automatic failure (i.e. none score less than 60). In each of the cases where the score for a Performance Indicator is below 80 and at or above 60, a condition is placed upon the fishery as a requirement of certification, further explanation of the attached conditions5 is provided in section 8.3. And further elaboration on the justification for the scores is provided in the relevant Performance Indicator in the assessment tree in Appendix 3.
5 In some cases several of the issues of concern raised in the scoring and outlined here, are covered by a single condition.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 50 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
8. Certification Recommendation 8.1 Overall Scores
The Performance of the St Helena tuna fisheries in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 is summarised below: MSC Principle Fishery Performance Principle 1: Sustainability of Exploited Stock bigeye Overall: 76.5 FAIL yellowfin Overall: 75.8 FAIL albacore Overall: 75.8 FAIL skipjack Overall: 74.4 FAIL Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem Overall: 81.0 PASS Principle 3: Effective Management System Overall: 80.4 PASS
The fisheries attained a score of 80 or more against MSC Principles 2 & 3 but failed to achieve a score of 80 or above for Principle 1. No fishery scored below 60 against any MSC Criteria. It is therefore recommended that the St Helena tuna fisheries are NOT certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. Following the deliberations of the assessment team, and review by stakeholders and peer- reviewers, this recommendation will be presented to the FCI Certification Sub-Committee.
8.2 Limit of Identification of Landings
This assessment relates only to the fishery defined in Section 2.1 up to the point where the fish are shipped from the island of St Helena.
8.3 Conditions
The fishery attained a score of below 80 against a number of Performance Indicators. The assessment team has therefore set a number of conditions for continuing certification that the St Helena tuna fisheries, as the client for certification, is required to address. The conditions are applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the certification body but no longer than the term of the certification. As a standard condition of certification, the client shall develop an 'Action Plan’ for meeting the conditions for certification, to be approved by Food Certification International.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 51 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The conditions are associated with six key areas of performance of the fisheries, each of which addresses one or more Performance Indicators. Conditions, associated timescales and relevant Performance Indicators are set out below.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 52 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Condition 1: Improve basis by which ICCAT manages stocks, and ensures the compliance of its members to decisions made
Relevant Performance Indicators: BGE YLF ALB SKJ 75 - 1.1.2 – [SG80] – Stock status - Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. For low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. 75 - 3.1.1 – [SG80] – Governance and policy – legal and customary framework - The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery. The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. The management system has a mechanism to observe the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. 75 - 3.2.2 – [SG80] – Fishery specific management system – decision- making processes - There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. 80 - 3.2.5 – [SG80] – Monitoring and management performance evaluation - The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and occasional external review.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 53 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Timelines: A review of the adequacy of the fishery management systems employed on St Helena should be undertaken by the time of first surveillance. Evidence of progress in seeking to influence the systems employed by ICCAT in the management of these stocks should be provided by the time of first surveillance (efforts by the FCO and St Helena, in writing and at meetings, to bring about changes in the management of these stocks – by reference points and harvest control rules), needs to be made by the time of first surveillance. But, crucially, there is a requirement to demonstrate that changes have been introduced at the level of ICCAT to support re- scoring of these PIs at or above 80 – which will need to be achieved (closed out) within the five-year period of the validity of the certificate. Suggested Action: There are limits to what a small fishing entity such as St Helena can do to influence the political will of ICCAT member countries to apply the precautionary principle in decision-making, and apply and show to have complied with ICCAT decisions for the management of Atlantic tunas, but it needs to play its part. The UK, which represents St Helena at ICCAT, is a full member of ICCAT and, though its tuna interests are minor, it does have an obligation through its commitment to various international agreements, to press for improvement in the effectiveness of ICCAT. St Helena and the UK need to demonstrate that they have pressed ICCAT and its members to meet the requirements and intent of the ICCAT Convention and to accommodate updated approaches to the operations and work of Regional Fishery Management Organisations. Also evidence that the UK and St Helena have pressed for the relevant ICCAT scientific committees to recognise and then apply management of the Atlantic tuna stocks on the basis of a reference points system, incorporating “target”, “precautionary” and “limit” reference points. Evidence that pressure has produced results should ultimately be obtained from agreed harvest controls that are consistent with sustainability criteria. Where St Helena can influence management of this particular fishery there are clearly areas where improvements can and should be achieved - weaknesses evident in data collection, collation and forwarding, strategy development with respect to discards and ETP species interactions. These are addressed under other PIs, but there is need for the existing systems to embrace and include a function of review of the adequacy of current systems in assessing and responding to circumstances and change. Such a review should be undertaken as a part of this condition.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 54 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Condition 2: Management of skipjack stock
Relevant Performance Indicators: 75 for skipjack only - 1.2.1 – [SG80] – Harvest strategy - The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. 70 for skipjack - 1.2.3 – [SG80] – Information and monitoring - Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Timelines: Evidence of progress against this condition will be required by the time of first surveillance, but there will also be a requirement to demonstrate that changes have been introduced at the level of ICCAT to support re-scoring of these PIs at or above 80. Suggested Action: To meet the requirements of the MSC standard it is necessary that there is clear evidence that the stock is in good condition, that data quantity and quality supports the assessment methodology employed, that management of the stock is based on evidence, and that sufficient monitoring is in place to verify that the management approach is achieving the objectives set for the management of the stock. A complete harvest strategy incorporating all these components needs to be developed for skipjack. This is a standard requirement often defined within a fisheries management plan*. * See … » Cochrane, K.L. 2002. A fishery manager’s guidebook: Management measures and their application. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 424. Rome, FAO. 231pp. (http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y3427e/y3427e00.htm) » Hindson et al. “ How to Manage a Fishery: A simple guide to writing a Fishery Management Plan” MRAG FMSP Report R8468; which might be found at http://p15166578.pureserver.info/fmsp/Documents/r8468/R8468_Guide2.pdf
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 55 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Condition 3: Establishment of responsive harvest control rules for each fishery
Relevant Performance Indicators: BGE YLF ALB SKJ 60 - 1.2.2 – [SG80] – Harvest control roles / tools - Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties. Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. Timelines: Evidence of progress against this condition will be required by the time of first surveillance, but there will also be a requirement to demonstrate that changes have been introduced at the level of ICCAT to support re- scoring of these PIs at or above 80. Suggested Action: To meet the requirements of the MSC standard it is necessary that Harvest Control Rules are in place for the exploitation of each of the stocks that form the focus of this assessment. These need to be evidence based, responsive to changes in stock condition, with evidence that application of the HCR is likely to be effective in achieving the objectives of the harvest strategy for each stock (and fleet component). Evidence should be available from ICCAT reports as to the HCR itself, which should be well-defined as well as specifying a clear procedure for its implementation.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 56 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Condition 4: Retained bycatch species
Relevant Performance Indicators: 75 - 2.1.1 – [SG80] – Bycatch (retained) – outcome - Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. 75 - 2.1.3 – [SG80] – Bycatch (retained) – information - Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). Timelines: A strategy to reduce the incidence of capture of marlins needs to be in place by time of first surveillance, as does the regular recording of sightings, capture and landing or release of marlins. Application of the strategy needs to be monitored throughout the duration of the certificate. Suggested Action: According to ICCAT, stocks of Atlantic blue marlin and white marlin are overfished and being rebuilt. St Helena catches, as a proportion of tuna catches, are on a par with those caught in other Atlantic tuna fisheries. Nonetheless, given the need to rebuild these stocks, it is appropriate that St Helena design and implement a strategy to reduce the incidence of capture of these marlins, including the keeping of records on when marlins are sighted, when caught and retained, and when caught and released (both alive and dead).
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 57 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Condition 5: Strategies for managing interactions with ETP and discarded bycatch species
Relevant Performance Indicators: 75 - 2.2.2 – [SG80] – Bycatch (discarded) – management - There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing bycatch that is expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. 75 – 2.3.2 – [SG80] – ETP species - management – Precautionary management strategy - There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, that is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. Timelines: Development of strategies by the time of first surveillance, and evidence of successful implementation of the strategies by the time of the second surveillance. Evidence of the success of the strategy will be monitored throughout the period for which the certificate is held. Suggested Action: There is a need to better address issues of monitoring ETP interactions and the incidence of bycatch, and to minimise the negative impacts of such interactions. Since in the case of sharks and possibly also billfish it is not always clear what species is caught / sighted / released / landed, and thus whether or not that species is more appropriately recorded as an ETP interaction, the strategies for dealing with discarded bycatch and ETP need to be inter-linked and mutually compatible – most notably in regard to interactions with shark species and seabird species. The first requirement is thus to draft a management strategy covering ETP and bycatch interactions that builds on and extends current practice, incorporating current interaction, possible but currently unrecorded interaction with other ETP species, and interaction with species that may be defined at ETP species in the future. The strategy should incorporate collation and monitoring of data on the extent of current interaction, evidence concerning the likely survival rates of ETP species caught and then released, and determination of precautionary mortality thresholds for the key species.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 58 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Sharks form a (albeit infrequent) component of bycatch in three of these four fisheries. Sharks are in general of low fecundity and at high risk of over-exploitation. The mako shark is identified as one species that is at heightened risk of over-exploitation. Some at-risk hammerhead sharks are also found in the south east Atlantic. The St Helena fisheries need to develop and implement a programme to manage the interaction of these fisheries with sharks and other discarded species – sighting, capture retained, capture released alive and likely to survive, capture released dead - that includes the monitoring of the frequency and outcome of interactions, and seeks to minimise shark mortalities. Such a strategy could also be incorporated within a code of conduct for the St Helena industry.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 59 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Condition 6: Collection of information on interactions with ETP and bycatch species
Relevant Performance Indicators: 75 - 2.2.3 – [SG80] – Bycatch (discarded) – information - Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). 75 - 2.3.3 – [SG80] – ETP species – information - Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts. Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. Timelines: Recording and monitoring systems to be up and running by the time of first surveillance, and evidence of the success of the strategy will be monitored throughout the period for which the certificate is held. Suggested Action: Following on from the development of strategies for managing bycatch and ETP interactions there is a need to put in place systematic recording of such interactions. Since all the fisheries under assessment are daily fisheries, it may be appropriate to require that skippers keep a simple daily record of where they have been fishing, what they have caught, and details of any interactions with ETP species – whether sighted or caught – and discarded bycatch fish and seabirds.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 60 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
8.4 Recommended Actions
In addition to the above, a number of non-binding recommended actions are also made by the assessors.
Recommendation 1: Report to ICCAT on an annual basis, and confirm receipt of, data on all landings of relevant species.
Relevant Performance Indicators: BGE 80, YLF 80, ALB 80, SKJ 70 - 1.2.3 – [SG80] - Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy 75 - 2.1.3 - [SG80] – Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species. Timelines: To be accomplished every year, as from the time of certification. Suggested Action: Reporting of all landings of large pelagic species to ICCAT – including historical data where this has not already been transmitted to the ICCAT statistics desk.
Recommendation 2: Establish acceptable levels of fishery related mortality of protected seabirds.
Relevant Performance Indicators: 80 - 2.3.2 – [SG80] - The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to minimise mortality of ETP species. Timelines: By the time of the first surveillance audit of this fishery. Suggested Action: The Fisheries Department to develop, in collaboration with the St Helena National Trust and the Natural Resources Committee, guidelines as to what may be deemed acceptable levels of fishery related mortality of protected seabirds (e.g. up to a level of x deaths per month) as a basis for developing a strategy and determining acceptable impacts of fishery / ETP interactions. The basis for this should be founded on assessment of the health of local populations that roost or nest on the island, but supplemented by application of an ecological risk assessment approach to determine overall risk.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 61 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Recommendation 3: Develop an appropriate management strategy for St Helena wahoo stock.
Relevant Performance Indicators: 80 - 2.1.2 - [SG80] - Management strategy for managing retained species. Timelines: Outline strategy to be in place by the time of the first surveillance, and subject to evaluation at the time of second and third surveillance visits. Suggested Action: Whilst wahoo is deemed to be a low risk species using both the SICA and the PSA assessment, it forms a significant bycatch in the tunas fisheries – primarily in the troll fishery – it is deemed appropriate that a strategy should be developed for the local harvesting of this species that is both locally precautionary and complies with best available evidence for management of the stock of this species. This is likely to take the form of some simple form of harvest control rule, but requires a slight tightening up of the recording and analysis of catches of this species – frequency, weight and possibly sex.
Recommendation 4: Develop a Code of Practice to cover the handling and recording of interactions with ETP and other discarded bycatch.
Relevant Performance Indicators: 75 - 2.2.2 - [SG80] - Management strategy for managing discarded bycatch interactions. 80 – 2.3.2 – [SG80] – Precautionary management strategy for managing ETP interactions Timelines: An appropriate Code of Practice and relevant training to be in place and applied by the first surveillance visit. Suggested Action: Development of a Code of Practice covering management of any and all interactions with ETP species and discarded bycatch, incorporating instructions dealing with the release of each type of organism such as to maximise the likelihood of survival, and the recording of the nature of the interaction, and key parameters relating to species identity, weight, condition, etc..
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 62 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Recommendation 5: Develop a clear statement of UK and island fishery specific objectives.
Relevant Performance Indicators: 80 – 3.2.1 - [SG80] – Fishery specific objectives - Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system.. Timelines: A policy statement to be drafted and agreed and applied by the time of the first surveillance visit. Suggested Action: Neither London (FCO) nor Jamestown has a clear statement of short and long-term policy objectives with respect to this fishery. This recommendation seeks to encourage the development of policy documents / statements that clearly describe UK and island fishery policy in ways that give consistency between London (FCO) and Jamestown that explicitly defines the short- and long-term objectives for this fishery.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 63 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
9. Applicant’s Agreement to Conditions
The agreed and signed Action Plan of the St Helena tuna fisheries to meet the above Conditions of Certification is appended to this report (Appendix 6).
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 64 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 1 – MSC Ps & Cs
Below is a much-simplified summary of the MSC Principles and Criteria, to be used for over- view purposes only. For a fuller description, including scoring guideposts under each
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 65 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Performance Indicator, reference should be made to the full assessment tree, complete with scores and justification, contained in Appendix 3 of this report. Alternately a fuller description of the MSC Principles and Criteria can be obtained from the MSC website (www.msc.org).
Principle 1
A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Intent: The intent of this Principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short-term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term. Status » The stock is at a level that maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing. » Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock (or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome). » Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding and rebuilding strategies are in place with reasonable expectation that they will succeed.
Harvest strategy / management » There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place, which is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives. » There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place that endeavour to maintain stocks at target levels. » Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. » The stock assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, takes into account uncertainty, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 66 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Principle 2
Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends Intent: The intent of this Principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Retained species / Bycatch / ETP species » Main species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside the limits there is a full strategy of demonstrably effective management measures. » There is a strategy in place for managing these species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species. » Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status and support a full strategy to manage main retained / bycatch and ETP species. Habitat & Ecosystem » The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat or ecosystem structure and function, considered on a regional or bioregional basis. » There is a strategy and measures in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types. » The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types and ecosystem functions in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear.
Principle 3
The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery. Governance and policy » The management system exists within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework that is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries and observes the legal & customary rights of people and incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 67 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» Functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals involved in the management process are explicitly defined and well understood. The management system includes consultation processes. » The management policy has clear long-term objectives, incorporates the precautionary approach and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. Fishery specific management system » Short and long term objectives are explicit within the fishery’s management system. » Decision-making processes respond to relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner. » A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. » A research plan provides the management system with reliable and timely information and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 68 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 2 – References
St Helena fisheries » SHFC (2009) Purchase records, April 08 to March 09 » SHFC (2009) Per vessel catch per unit effort calculations for period April 08 to March 09 » SHG (2009) Overview of St Helena fishing industry – Dept of Agriculture and Natural Resources » Hecht, T (2007) The Ascension Island Fisheries with Recommendations for Management; Enviro-Fish Africa (Pty) Ltd - 85pp » Argos Helena Ltd (2000) Observer report - exploratory fishing trial in the St Helena and Ascencion Island EFZ – 3 to 27 November 2000 » Tremayne J. (1998) Marine and Coastal Resources Management Plan. Directorate of Fisheries, Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, Government of St. Helena. » Maruha (1998) Observer’s report on alfonsino and boar fish exploratory survey, MFV Seaflower » Ninnes C (1996) Report on a visit to provide marine and coastal assessment and management inputs to the Government of St Helena 20 September to 13 November 1996; MRAG – 77pp » Edwards A. (1990) Fish and fisheries of St. Helena Island. Centre for Tropical Coastal Management Studies, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK » ODA (1990) Commercial Fisheries Development: Project No. 334 – Project Memorandum » Scullion J (1990) Review of the fish resources, fisheries and oceanography within the exclusive fishing zone of Ascension Island – 77+85pp » Hoogesteger J (1989) The potential for offshore fisheries in the St Helena exclusive fishing zone – final report on an ODA Resource Assessment Survey 1985-1988; edited by T.J.Pitcher & C.E. Hollingworth » Hoogesteger J.N. (1987) offshore fisheries development as an integral part of Phase II: the Bonaparte / Cardno Sea Mount Fishery for Tunas – 10pp ICCAT RFMO » ICCAT (2007) Basic Texts. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. 5th Revision. Madrid, Spain. » ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. » Restrepo V.R. (2009) Red, Green and Yellow: Thoughts on Stock Status and the ICCAT Convention Objectives. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 64(7): 2663-2673. SCRS/2008/172. Stock assessments » ICCAT (2009) 8.1 Yellowfin Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. » ICCAT (2009) 8.2 Bigeye Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. » ICCAT (2009) 8.3 Skipjack Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 69 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» ICCAT (2009) 8.4 Albacore Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. » ICCAT (2007) 8.6 Blue & White Marlin ICCAT Report 2006-2007. Report for Biennial Period 2006-07. Part II Vol. 2. » ICCAT (2007) 8.11 Small tunas (inc. Wahoo) ICCAT Report 2006-2007. Report for Biennial Period 2006-07. Part II Vol. 2. » ICCAT (2007) Report of the 2006 ICCAT billfish stock assessment - Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 60(5): 1431-1546 (2007), Chapter 8.6 Blue & White Marlin. English version. » ICCAT (2007) Report of the 2006 ICCAT billfish stock assessment - Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 60(5): 1431-1546 (2007), Chapter 8.11 Small tunas (inc. Wahoo). English version. » ICCAT (2007) Report of the 2006 ICCAT billfish stock assessment - Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 60(5): 1431-1546 (2007), Chapter 8.12 sharks. English version. » Davies, C.A., D. Brophy, P. Megalofonou, E. Gosling, N. Griffin, B. Leroy and N. Clear (2008) Age Estimation In Calcified Calcareous Structures; Preliminary Findings Of An Inter- Laboratory Comparison SCRS/2007/102 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(3): 899-910. » ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Albacore Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/015 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(3): 697-815. » ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Bigeye Tuna Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/013 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(1): 97-239 » ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016. » ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Albacore Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/015 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(3): 697-815. » Lee, L.K. and S-Y. Yeh. (2007). Age and growth of South Atlantic albacore – a revision after the revelation of otolith daily ring counts. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 60(2): 443-456. » Rademeyer, R.A., D.S. Butterworth and A.J. Penney (2004) A Bayesian Assessment of the South Atlantic population of albacore which explicitly models changes in targeting. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 56(4): 1360-1390. St Helena planning documents » DFID (2009) Consultation on whether an airport is the most appropriate option for access to St Helena in the current economic climate; 34pp » SHG (2007) St Helena Sustainable Development Plan 2007/08 – 2009/10; 83pp » Ti-Up Resource Centre (2007) St Helena Access Project Infrastructure Review » Steele, R J G (1999) Renewable Natural Resources Strategy 1999-2004; Agric. and Nat. Res. Dept. 22pp » SHG (1999) The St Helena Strategic Review 2000-2010; 74pp Environmental management » ANRD (2009) Marine monitoring programme - Database of marine sightings from marine life sightings programme, 2004 to 2009 » CITES (2009) Appendix I and II listings
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 70 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» ANRD (2009) Marine monitoring programme – survey results of seabird colony monitoring, 2006 to 2009 » SHG (2008) Strategy for Action to Implement St Helena’s Commitments under its Environment Charter » Klaer. N.l., Black a. & Howgate. E. (2008) Preliminary estimates of total seabird bycatch by ICCAT fisheries in recent years. ICCAT SCRS 2008 031 » SEAFO (2007) Conservation Measure 05/06 on Reducing Incidental By-catch Of Seabirds In The SEAFO Convention Area » Bennett, E.L. (2007) Final Report on Marine Ecology Survey at Rupert’s Bay, St Helena in conjunction with the Air Access Project, Fisheries Section Agriculture and Natural Resources Department St Helena island. » MORATO Gomes T A F (2007) Ecology and fisheries of seamount ecosystems – PhD thesis – Univ. of British Colombia » Atkins. (2005) St Helena Access Feasibility Study, Environment Analysis, Final Report. » Defra (2005) Format for reports of parties on implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (revision of June 2003) » OTEP (2005) A monitoring scheme and awareness programme for seabirds and turtles on St Helena; report on the visit of Tara George, Ascension Island Government Conservation Officer, October 21st – November 9th 2004 » McCulloch N. (2004) A guide to the birds of St Helena and Ascension Island. RSPB » Rogers A D (2004) The biology, ecology and vulnerability of seamount communities; IUCN » Morato T., Cheung W. W. L & Pitcher T. J (2004) Vulnerability of seamount fish to fishing: Fuzzy Analysis of Life History Attributes. In Morato T. & Pauly D. (Editors) 2004. Seamounts: Biodiversity and Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 12 (5): 78p » Convention on Migratory Species (2002) First Meeting of Signatory States to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning Conservation Measures for Marine Turtles of the Atlantic Coast of Africa; 6 - 9 May 2002, Nairobi, Kenya » SHG (2001) St Helena Environment Charter » Ashmole P & M. (2000) St Helena and Ascension Island: A Natural History. Antony Nelson, Oswestry UK » Royal Botanic Gardens Kew (1993) Report on Sustainable Environment and Development Strategy - A Proposed Approach » Royal Botanic Gardens Kew (1993) Report on sustainable environment and development strategy and action plan for St Helena; Executive Summary, and Vols 1 & 2. St Helena Government legislation » SHG. (2003) Legislation: The Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources Ordinance » SHG (2001) Legislation: Chapter 75 - Endangered Species Protection Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation » SHG (2001) Legislation: Chapter 97 - Birds Protection Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation » SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 47 - Harbours Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation (Including Harbour Regulations - Section 28, Feb 1998).
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 71 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 88 - Fishery Limits Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation. » SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 89 - Fish and Fish Products Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation. » SHG. (2001) Legislation: The High Seas Fishing Ordinance » SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 90 - The St Helena Fisheries Corporation Ordinance » SHG. (1999) Legislation: Fish and Fish Products Marketing Regulations. » SHG. (1979) Legislation: Fishery Limits (Licensing of Fishing) Order
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 72 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 3 – Assessment Tree / Scoring sheets
The following Assessment Tree includes description of the Scoring Guideposts (SGs) and Performance Indicators (PIs) used to score the fishery. The Assessment Tree provides detailed justification for all scores attributed to the fishery, in a way which is clearly auditable by future assessors. 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.
1.1 Management Outcomes
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 1.1.1 Stock Status It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the stock There is a high degree of above the point where is above the point where certainty that the stock is The stock is at a level recruitment would be recruitment would be above the point where which maintains high impaired. impaired. recruitment would be productivity and has a impaired. low probability of recruitment The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of overfishing around its target reference certainty that the stock has point. been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has
been above its target reference point, over recent years.
Score: 75 Albacore – The stock is below the target level and therefore does not meet the 80 guideposts. Justification It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.
The best estimate of stock size indicates that the stock is approximately 90% of the BMSY level, which is highly likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired – the default value for this being around 50% of the BMSY level. The stock is not at or fluctuating around its target reference point. Based on the 2007 assessment which considers catch, size and effort since the 1950s, it is likely that the stock was below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) level in 2005, while fishing mortality rate was about 60% of FMSY. Therefore, while catches are currently at an appropriate level to allow the stock to rise above the MSY level, catches have exceeded prudent levels in the past and the stock requires some rebuilding to take it back to the target level. While this guidepost is not met, the status and fishing mortality is close enough to allow the status to partially meet the requirements. References ICCAT(2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Albacore Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/015 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(3): 697-815.
Score: 75 Bigeye - The stock is below the target level and therefore does not meet the 80 guideposts. Justification It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.
The best estimate of stock size indicates that the stock is approximately 92% of the BMSY level in 2006, which is highly likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired – the default value for this being around 50% of the BMSY level. The stock is not at or fluctuating around its target reference point.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 73 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Based on the 2007 assessment which considers catch, size and effort since the 1950s, it is likely that the stock was below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) level in 2006, while fishing mortality rate was about 87% of FMSY. Therefore, while catches are currently at an appropriate level to allow the stock to rise above the MSY level, catches have exceeded prudent levels in the past and the stock requires some rebuilding to take it back to the target level. While this guidepost is not met, the status and fishing mortality is close enough to allow the status to partially meet the requirements. References ICCAT (2009) 8.2 Bigeye Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Bigeye Tuna Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/013 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(1): 97-239
Score: 75 Yellowfin - The stock is below the target level and therefore does not meet the 80 guideposts. Justification It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.
The best estimate of stock size indicates that the stock is approximately 96% of the BMSY level in 2006, which is highly likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired – the default value for this being around 50% of the BMSY level. The stock is not at or fluctuating around its target reference point. Based on the 2007 assessment which considers catch, size and effort since the 1950s, it is likely that the stock was below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) level in 2006, while fishing mortality rate was about 86% of FMSY. Therefore, while catches are currently at an appropriate level to allow the stock to rise above the MSY level, catches have exceeded prudent levels in the past and the stock still requires some rebuilding to take it back to the target level. While this guidepost is not met, the status and fishing mortality is close enough to allow the status to partially meet the requirements. References ICCAT (2009) 8.1 Yellowfin Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
Score: 80 Skipjack - The stock is around the target level and therefore meets the 80 guideposts. Justification It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.
The best estimate of the Eastern Atlantic skipjack stock size indicates that the stock is most likely above the BMSY level in 2006, which is highly likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired – the default value for this being around 50% of the BMSY level. The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. Based on the 2007 assessment which considers catch and effort since the 1950s, it is likely that the stock was above the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) level in 2006. Therefore, based on the available information, the stock appears to be within its target region. References ICCAT (2009) 8.3 Skipjack Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 74 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 1.1.2 Reference Points Generic limit and target Reference points are Reference points are reference points are appropriate for the stock and appropriate for the stock and Limit and target based on justifiable and can be estimated. can be estimated. reference points are reasonable practice appropriate for the appropriate for the The limit reference point is set The limit reference point is set stock. species category. above the level at which there is above the level at which there an appreciable risk of impairing is an appreciable risk of reproductive capacity. impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of relevant precautionary issues. The target reference point is The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained such that the stock is at a level consistent with BMSY or maintained at a level some measure or surrogate with consistent with BMSY or some similar intent or outcome. measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a For low trophic level species, the higher level, and takes into target reference point takes into account relevant account the ecological role of precautionary issues such as the stock. the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty.
Score: 75 Albacore – Reference points exist, but are not well defined and therefore the stocks do not meet the 80 guideposts. Justification Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The reference points are estimated, based on MSY and appropriate for tuna stocks. MSY is estimated as part of the stock assessment and will depend in part on the selectivity of the fishery. The limit reference point is not defined. Although there is no specific limit point, there is a limit region defined below the trigger reference point. The trigger is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity and therefore there is an implied limit below this point. The default 50% BMSY is assumed here for purposes of defining stock status. However, the lack of a well-defined point indicates that the 80 guidepost is not met.
The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. Although no target reference point is defined, the target region is defined as the biomass above the MSY level. While this meets the 80 guidepost requirement, a better defined level taking into account uncertainty would be necessary before the higher guidepost could be met. For low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Albacore is not a low trophic level species. Condition 1 has been raised to address issues arising References Restrepo V.R. (2009) Red, Green and Yellow: Thoughts on Stock Status and the ICCAT Convention Objectives. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 64(7): 2663-2673. SCRS/2008/172. ICCAT(2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Albacore Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/015 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(3): 697-815.
Score: 75 Bigeye - Reference points exist, but are not well defined and therefore the stocks do not meet the 80 guideposts.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 75 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Justification Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The reference points are estimated, based on MSY and appropriate for tuna stocks. MSY is estimated as part of the stock assessment and will depend in part on the selectivity of the fishery. The limit reference point is not defined. Although there is no specific limit point, there is a limit region defined below the trigger reference point. The trigger is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity and therefore there is an implied limit below this point. The default 50% BMSY is assumed here for purposes of defining stock status. However, the lack of a well-defined point indicates that the 80 guidepost is not met.
The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. Although no target reference point is defined, the target region is defined as the biomass above the MSY level. While this meets the 80 guidepost requirement, a better defined level taking into account uncertainty would be necessary before the higher guidepost could be met. For low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Bigeye tuna is not a low trophic level species. Condition 1 has been raised to address issues arising References Restrepo V.R. (2009) Red, Green and Yellow: Thoughts on Stock Status and the ICCAT Convention Objectives. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 64(7): 2663-2673. SCRS/2008/172. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Bigeye Tuna Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/013 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(1): 97-239
Score: 75 Yellowfin - Reference points exist, but are not well defined and therefore the stocks do not meet the 80 guideposts. Justification Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The reference points are estimated, based on MSY and appropriate for tuna stocks. MSY is estimated as part of the stock assessment and will depend in part on the selectivity of the fishery. The limit reference point is not defined. Although there is no specific limit point, there is a limit region defined below the trigger reference point. The trigger is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity and therefore there is an implied limit below this point. The default 50% BMSY is assumed here for purposes of defining stock status. However, the lack of a well-defined point indicates that the 80 guidepost is not met.
The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. Although no target reference point is defined, the target region is defined as the biomass above the MSY level. While this meets the 80 guidepost requirement, a better defined level taking into account uncertainty would be necessary before the higher guidepost could be met. For low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Yellowfin tuna is not a low trophic level species. Condition 1 has been raised to address issues arising References Restrepo V.R. (2009) Red, Green and Yellow: Thoughts on Stock Status and the ICCAT Convention Objectives. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 64(7): 2663-2673. SCRS/2008/172. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 76 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Score: 75 Skipjack - Reference points exist, but are not well defined and therefore the stocks do not meet the 80 guideposts. Justification Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The reference points are estimated, based on MSY and appropriate for tuna stocks. MSY is estimated as part of the stock assessment and will depend in part on the selectivity of the fishery. The limit reference point is not defined. Although there is no specific limit point, there is a limit region defined below the trigger reference point. The trigger is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity and therefore there is an implied limit below this point. The default 50% BMSY is assumed here for purposes of defining stock status. However, the lack of a well-defined point indicates that the 80 guidepost is not met.
The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. Although no target reference point is defined, the target region is defined as the biomass above the MSY level. While this meets the 80 guidepost requirement, a better defined level taking into account uncertainty would be necessary before the higher guidepost could be met. For low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Skipjack tuna is not a low trophic level species. Condition 1 has been raised to address issues arising References Restrepo V.R. (2009) Red, Green and Yellow: Thoughts on Stock Status and the ICCAT Convention Objectives. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 64(7): 2663-2673. SCRS/2008/172. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 77 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted Where stocks are depleted, depleted rebuilding rebuilding strategies are in strategies are demonstrated Where the stock is strategies which have a place. to be rebuilding stocks depleted, there is reasonable expectation continuously and there is evidence of stock of success are in place. strong evidence that rebuilding. rebuilding will be complete
within the shortest practicable timeframe. Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that they are determine whether they rebuilding stocks, or it is highly are effective in rebuilding likely based on simulation the stock within a modelling or previous specified timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe.
Score: 80 Albacore - Model projections suggest the stock should rebuild rapidly under the current conditions, meeting the 80 guideposts. Justification Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place. The stock is depleted (defined as the biomass below the MSY level) and a strategy is being applied. This is to limit catches to a level which will allow recovery. The TAC is currently just above the best estimate for the replacement yield. However, no adjustment has been made because catches have so far remained well below this level. With recovery, the replacement yield should increase and approach the MSY. Therefore, the current approach seems at least adequate, given the level of monitoring. There is evidence that they are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe. It is highly likely that, based on the simulation modelling and at the current levels of catch, the stock will rebuild by 2018. Given this is based on a model, there remains some uncertainty, but the current catch is low enough that there can be confidence rebuilding should be rapid. However, increases in catches approaching 30,000t would make rebuilding less likely and, if no action were taken, mean that this performance indicator would not be met. Therefore, this guidepost is met on the basis that the current situation continues or that appropriate action is taken if the anticipated recovery is not taking place. References ICCAT(2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Albacore Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/015 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(3): 697-815.
Score: 80 Bigeye - Model projections suggest the stock should rebuild rapidly under the current conditions, meeting the 80 guideposts. Justification Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place. The stock is depleted (defined as the biomass below the MSY level) and a strategy is being applied. This is to limit catches to a level which will allow recovery and implement controls to reduce the catch of small bigeye tuna. The TAC is currently just above the best estimate for the replacement yield. However, no adjustment has been made because catches have so far remained below this level. With recovery, the replacement yield should increase and approach the MSY. Therefore, the current approach seems at least adequate, given the level of monitoring. The attempts to reduce small bigeye tuna catches are considered in PI 1.2.1. There is evidence that they are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe. It is highly likely that, based on the simulation modelling and at the current levels of catch, the stock will rebuild by 2018. Given this is based on a model, there remains some uncertainty, but the current catch is low enough that there can be confidence rebuilding should be rapid. However, increases in catches approaching 90,000t (the current TAC) would make rebuilding much less likely and, if no action were taken, mean that this performance indicator would not be met. Therefore, this guidepost is met on the basis that the current situation continues or that appropriate action is taken if the anticipated recovery is not taking
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 78 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD place. References ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Bigeye Tuna Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/013 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(1): 97-239
Score: 80 Yellowfin - Model projections suggest the stock should rebuild rapidly under the current conditions, meeting the 80 guideposts. Justification Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place. The stock is depleted (defined as the biomass below the MSY level) and a strategy is being applied. The main constraint on fishing operations is the requirement to reduce fisheries targeting bigeye tuna. As yellowfin is caught alongside bigeye both in the surface fisheries (smaller, younger bigeye and yellowfin). There is no TAC in place to limit catches of yellowfin, but a TAC on bigeye tuna will effectively limit fishing effort on yellowfin. Limiting fishing mortality to a level which will allow recovery of bigeye should also allow recovery of yellowfin. There is evidence that they are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe. It is highly likely that, based on the simulation modelling and at the current levels of catch, the stock will rebuild by 2018. The recent reduction in yellowfin catches from the 2001 high and subsequent recovery of yellowfin stock to just below the MSY reference point would suggest that the current strategy is working, although it is primarily directed at bigeye tuna. Therefore, the current approach seems at least adequate, given the level of monitoring. The attempts to reduce small bigeye tuna catches are considered in PI 1.2.1. Given this is based on a model, there remains some uncertainty, but the current catch is low enough and stock assessment results suggest increasing stock size, so that there can be confidence rebuilding should be rapid. However, increases in catches above 130,000t would make rebuilding much less likely and, if no action were taken, mean that this performance indicator would not be met. Therefore, this guidepost is met on the basis that the current situation continues or that appropriate action is taken if the anticipated recovery is not taking place. For example, if there is an increase in fishing effort in an attempt to take the full bigeye TAC, yellowfin catches may become unsustainable. References ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
Score: - Skipjack - The stock is not depleted and therefore this performance indicator is not scored. Justification
References
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 79 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
1.2 Harvest Strategy (management)
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of the responsive to the state of the There is a robust and management objectives stock and the elements of the stock and is designed to precautionary harvest reflected in the target and harvest strategy work achieve stock management strategy in place limit reference points. together towards achieving objectives reflected in the management objectives target and limit reference
reflected in the target and points. limit reference points.
The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may not The performance of the likely to work based on have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been fully prior experience or monitoring is in place and evaluated and evidence exists plausible argument. evidence exists that it is to show that it is achieving its achieving its objectives. objectives including being
clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Monitoring is in place that The harvest strategy is is expected to determine periodically reviewed and whether the harvest improved as necessary. strategy is working.
Score: 80 Albacore – The fishery meets the 80 guideposts. The main weakness to the harvest strategy is picked up under PI 1.2.2. Justification The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. ICCAT’s objective is embedded in the preamble of its Convention finalised in 1966. The preamble states: “The Governments (…) considering their mutual interest in the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes found in the Atlantic ocean, and desiring to cooperate in maintaining the populations of these fishes at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch for food and other purposes”. ICCAT’s objective is therefore to maintain populations of tunas and tuna-like fishes at levels that will permit maximum sustainable yield (MSY). ICCAT, being a regional organisation, provides a forum where the various countries exploiting tunas can work together to implement the strategy to meet this objective. This appears to be working, at least for the southern Albacore stock. The current strategy is to limit catches to sustainable levels based on a feedback process implemented by the Commission. Scientific advice is provided and a TAC agreed through this process, which therefore also includes evaluation of and adaptation to changing circumstance. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. In the case of the southern albacore stock, the present TAC is 29,200t, but recent catches were below the TAC level. The assessment showed that the southern albacore stock is overfished, but model projections indicated that catches, at about the 2006 level, will recover the stock. The observed 2007 catch was, however, even lower than the 2006 level, so that the biomass should be increasing. The Scientific Committee considered that the current management regulations are sufficient for the recovery of the southern albacore stock based on model projections. In 2007, the Commission recommended [Rec. 07-03] adopting a catch limit of 29,900t until 2011. This is lower 80 percentile of the estimated MSY, but above the current replacement yield of 29,000t. The lack of adjustment to the TAC has been justified as actual catches have remained below the replacement yield for a number of years. The approach to management appears somewhat ponderous and evidence that it will continue to work is limited, preventing a higher score. The system requires re-evaluation and resetting the TAC through Commission recommendations that must be accepted by the contracting parties on each occasion. There is no pre-agreement on how to react to stock changes (picked up by PI 1.2.2 below) and stock assessments required to evaluate management performance are not frequent given the stock is heavily exploited.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 80 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
References ICCAT (2007) Basic Texts. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. 5th Revision. Madrid, Spain. Restrepo V.R. (2009) Red, Green and Yellow: Thoughts on Stock Status and the ICCAT Convention Objectives. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 64(7): 2663-2673. SCRS/2008/172. ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. ICCAT (2009) 8.4 Albacore Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT(2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Albacore Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/015 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(3): 697-815.
Score: 80 Bigeye - The fishery meets the 80 guideposts. The main weakness to the harvest strategy is picked up under PI 1.2.2. Justification The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. ICCAT’s objective is embedded in the preamble of its Convention finalised in 1966. The preamble states: “The Governments (…) considering their mutual interest in the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes found in the Atlantic ocean, and desiring to cooperate in maintaining the populations of these fishes at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch for food and other purposes”. ICCAT’s objective is therefore to maintain populations of tunas and tuna-like fishes at levels that will permit maximum sustainable yield (MSY). ICCAT, being a regional organisation, provides a forum where the various countries exploiting tunas can work together to implement the strategy to meet this objective. The current strategy is to limit catches to sustainable levels based on a feedback process implemented by the Commission and reduce bycatch of small bigeye tunas. Scientific advice is provided and a TAC with a seasonal closed area agreed through this process, which therefore also includes evaluation of and adaptation to changing circumstance. The external review panel found that the objectives of ICCAT appeared to be met for 4 of the 14 stocks examined (29%), which included bigeye and yellowfin tuna. However, it is noticeable that recent changes appear to have been made to the seasonal closure without reference to scientific advice, rendering this management action less effective. This designed aspect of the strategy to change overall selectivity therefore cannot be given credit. The external review panel recommended that more effective measures be developed and adopted to deal with the catch of small bigeye tuna including closer regulation of FAD use. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. In the case of the bigeye stock, the present TAC is 90,000t, but recent catches were below the TAC level. The assessment showed that the bigeye stock is overfished, but model projections indicated that catches, at about the 2006 level, will recover the stock. The observed 2007 catch was approximately the same as the 2006 level, so that the biomass should be increasing. The approach to management appears somewhat ponderous and evidence that it will continue to work is limited, preventing a higher score. The system requires re-evaluation and resetting the TAC through Commission recommendations which must be accepted by the contracting parties on each occasion. There is no pre-agreement on how to react to stock changes (picked up by PI 1.2.2 below) and stock assessments required to evaluate management performance are not frequent given the stock is heavily exploited. References ICCAT (2007) Basic Texts. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. 5th Revision. Madrid, Spain. Restrepo V.R. (2009) Red, Green and Yellow: Thoughts on Stock Status and the ICCAT Convention Objectives. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 64(7): 2663-2673. SCRS/2008/172. ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. ICCAT (2009) 8.2 Bigeye Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Bigeye Tuna Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/013 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(1): 97-239
Score: 80
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 81 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Yellowfin - The harvest strategy meets the 80 guideposts, but the lack of a clear designed strategy which can be reviewed and updated prevents a higher score. The main weakness to the harvest strategy is picked up under PI 1.2.2. Justification The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. ICCAT’s objective is embedded in the preamble of its Convention finalised in 1966. The preamble states: “The Governments (…) considering their mutual interest in the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes found in the Atlantic ocean, and desiring to cooperate in maintaining the populations of these fishes at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch for food and other purposes”. ICCAT’s objective is therefore to maintain populations of tunas and tuna-like fishes at levels that will permit maximum sustainable yield (MSY). ICCAT, being a regional organisation, provides a forum where the various countries exploiting tunas can work together to implement the strategy to meet this objective. The current strategy is to limit catches to sustainable levels based on a feedback process implemented by the Commission and to reduce bycatch of small bigeye tunas. Scientific advice is provided and a TAC with a seasonal closed area agreed through this process, which therefore also includes evaluation of and adaptation to changing circumstance. The external review panel found that the objectives of ICCAT appeared to be met for 4 of the 14 stocks examined (29%), which included bigeye and yellowfin tuna. However, it is noticeable that recent changes appear to have been made to the seasonal closure without reference to scientific advice, rendering this management action less effective. This designed aspect of the strategy to change overall selectivity therefore cannot be given significant credit. For yellowfin, the strategy depends on the relative selectivity of the different fishing methods between yellowfin and bigeye tunas. While multispecies aspects of the catches have been explored in various analyses, there is no cohesive designed strategy to jointly manage and monitor the stocks. The reliance is on responding to detected problems rather than designing an approach to optimise the fisheries across the various stocks. This prevents a higher score under this performance indicator. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. In the case of the yellowfin stock, the fishing mortality is constrained by controls primarily intended to limit fishing mortality on bigeye tuna. The assessment showed that the yellowfin stock is overfished or fully exploited, but model projections indicated that catches, at about the 2006 level, will recover the stock to above the MSY level. The approach to management appears somewhat ponderous and evidence that it will continue to work is limited, preventing a higher score. The system requires re-evaluation and resetting the TAC through Commission recommendations which must be accepted by the contracting parties on each occasion. There is no pre-agreement on how to react to stock changes (picked up by PI 1.2.2 below) and stock assessments required to evaluate management performance are not frequent given the stock is heavily exploited. References ICCAT (2007) Basic Texts. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. 5th Revision. Madrid, Spain. Restrepo V.R. (2009) Red, Green and Yellow: Thoughts on Stock Status and the ICCAT Convention Objectives. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 64(7): 2663-2673. SCRS/2008/172. ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. ICCAT (2009) 8.1 Yellowfin Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
Score: 75 Skipjack - The fishery does not meet the 80 guideposts. Because the second guidepost was partially met, a score of 75 is awarded. However, the main weakness to the harvest strategy is picked up under PI 1.2.2. Justification The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. ICCAT’s objective is embedded in the preamble of its Convention finalised in 1966. The preamble states: “The Governments (…) considering their mutual interest in the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes found in the Atlantic ocean, and desiring to cooperate in maintaining the populations of these fishes at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch for food and other purposes”. ICCAT’s objective is therefore to maintain populations of tunas and tuna-like fishes at levels that will permit maximum sustainable yield (MSY). ICCAT, being a regional organisation, provides a forum where the various countries exploiting tunas can work together to implement the strategy to meet this objective. The current strategy is to limit by-catch of other
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 82 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD tunas to sustainable levels based on a feedback process implemented by the Commission. Scientific advice is provided and a seasonal closed area was agreed through this process, which therefore also includes evaluation of and adaptation to changing circumstance. However, the harvest strategy has a number of anomalies making it difficult to see how the different elements work together. The seasonal closure has changed to cover only 7.5% of the historical purse seine catch and this closure appears to have been changed without scientific advice. Furthermore, there is no specific skipjack control such as a TAC, the assumption being that controls on by-catch are adequate. While this is expected to be true, a more directed feedback and control is required to meet the 80 guidepost. The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monitoring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. In the case of the eastern skipjack stock, there is no TAC, but catches and abundance indices are monitored suggesting the stock is in a good condition. While this suggests that the 80 guidepost is met, there are problems with the information on which the monitoring is based, which are picked up under PI 1.2.3. The approach to management appears somewhat ponderous and evidence that it will continue to work is limited, preventing a higher score. The system requires re-evaluation and applying recommendations that must be accepted by the contracting parties on each occasion. There is no pre-agreement on how to react to stock changes (picked up by PI 1.2.2 below) and stock assessments required to evaluate management performance are not frequent given the stock is heavily exploited (the last two stock assessments were 2008 and 1999), although monitoring between assessments is carried out. Condition 2 has been raised to address issues arising References ICCAT (2007) Basic Texts. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. 5th Revision. Madrid, Spain. Restrepo V.R. (2009) Red, Green and Yellow: Thoughts on Stock Status and the ICCAT Convention Objectives. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 64(7): 2663-2673. SCRS/2008/172. ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. ICCAT (2009) 8.3 Skipjack Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 83 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 1.2.2 Harvest control rules Generally understood Well defined harvest control Well defined harvest control and tools harvest control rules are in rules are in place that are rules are in place that are place that are consistent consistent with the harvest consistent with the harvest There are well defined with the harvest strategy strategy and ensure that the strategy and ensure that the and effective harvest and which act to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced as exploitation rate is reduced as control rules in place exploitation rate as limit limit reference points are limit reference points are reference points are approached. approached. approached. There is some evidence that The selection of the harvest The design of the harvest tools used to implement control rules takes into control rules take into harvest control rules are account the main account a wide range of appropriate and effective in uncertainties. uncertainties. controlling exploitation. Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that that the tools in use are the tools in use are effective appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation achieving the exploitation levels required under the levels required under the harvest control rules. harvest control rules.
Score: 60 Albacore - The fishery just meets the requirements under the 60 guideposts. However the lack of a well-defined harvest control rule and lack of evidence that the contracting parties will be able to implement a reduction in TAC when called on to do so prevents a higher score under this performance indicator. Justification Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. There is no well-defined harvest control rule and therefore there is no specific plan of control if the stock size falls below the trigger point (MSY). There is clear evidence of intention to reduce harvest in the face of depletion and the scientific advice indicated that the current level of control was adequate for a recovery of the stock to above the MSY level and that no additional action is required. However, this is not well-defined and the TAC has not been adjusted in response to changes in the stock status. The fact that it would be if the stock came under increased pressure is presumed, but not assured. In addition, setting the TAC at the MSY level is probably overoptimistic and arguably not very precautionary as it does not account for error. This may require a downward revision to a more realistic expectation of long term average catch from this stock. There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. The current level of control, perhaps at least partly through controls placed on capacity and effort directed at other species, has resulted in sustainable catch levels for southern albacore. If current catches continue the recovery could be very rapid, which is expected. There are various weaknesses preventing higher scores under this performance indicator. The TAC is shared among many countries and control is not precise. The practice of allowing the carry-forward of uncaught allocations in all fisheries effectively decreases the control over fishing mortality. ICCAT has had significant problems in implementing appropriate management measures in Atlantic bluefin tuna, indicating a higher risk should apply to all species under its auspices. Condition 3 has been raised to address issues arising References ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. ICCAT (2009) 8.4 Albacore Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT(2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Albacore Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/015 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(3): 697-815.
Score: 60
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 84 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Bigeye - The fishery just meets the requirements under the 60 guideposts. However the lack of a well-defined harvest control rule and lack of evidence that the contracting parties will be able to implement a reduction in TAC when called on to do so prevents a higher score under this performance indicator. Justification Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. There is no well-defined harvest control rule and therefore there is no specific plan of control if the stock size falls below the trigger point (MSY). There is clear evidence of intention to reduce harvest in the face of depletion and the scientific advice indicated that the current level of control was adequate for a recovery of the stock to above the MSY level and that no additional action is required. However, this is not well-defined and the TAC has not been adjusted in response to changes in the stock status. The fact that it would be if the stock came under increased pressure is presumed, but not assured. In addition, setting the TAC at the MSY level is probably overoptimistic and arguably not very precautionary as it does not account for error. This may require a downward revision to a more realistic expectation of long term average catch from this stock and the working group has recommended a maximum total catch of 85,000t. There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. The current level of control, perhaps at least partly through controls placed on capacity, has resulted in sustainable catch levels for bigeye tuna. Individual countries apply quota controls on their own and foreign fleets. Quota is decided upon at the commission and clearly not all quotas are being met. If current catches continue the recovery should be rapid. There are various weaknesses preventing higher scores under this performance indicator. The TAC is shared among many countries and control is not precise. The practice of allowing the carry forward of uncaught allocations in all fisheries effectively decreases the control over fishing mortality. ICCAT has had significant problems in implementing appropriate management measures in Atlantic bluefin tuna, indicating a higher risk should apply to all species under its auspices. Condition 3 has been raised to address issues arising References ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. ICCAT (2009) 8.2 Bigeye Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Bigeye Tuna Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/013 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(1): 97-239
Score: 60 Yellowfin - The fishery just meets the requirements under the 60 guideposts. However the lack of a well-defined harvest control rule and lack of evidence that the contracting parties will be able to implement a reduction in TAC when called on to do so prevents a higher score under this performance indicator. Justification Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. There is no well-defined harvest control rule and therefore there is no specific plan of control if the stock size falls below the trigger point (MSY). There is clear evidence of intention to reduce harvest in the face of depletion and the scientific advice indicated that the current level of control was adequate for a recovery of the stock to above the MSY level and that no additional action is required. However, this is not well-defined and it is not clear how levels of yellowfin catch relate to the target catch for bigeye or what would be done if a higher fishing mortality could be directed at yellowfin. The fact that appropriate action would be taken if the stock came under increased pressure is presumed, but not assured. There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. The current level of control, perhaps at least partly through controls placed on capacity, has resulted in sustainable catch levels for yellowfin tuna at least currently. Individual countries apply quota controls on their own and foreign fleets for TAC which limits effective fishing effort on yellowfin in the surface and longline fisheries. Quota is decided upon at the commission, but clearly not all bigeye quotas are being met. If current catches continue the recovery should be rapid, but if catches of bigeye rises to the current TAC level, it is not clear that yellowfin catches would still maintain the biomass at the target level. There are various weaknesses preventing higher scores under this performance indicator. The TAC is shared among many
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 85 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD countries and control is not precise. The practice of allowing the carry forward of uncaught allocations in all fisheries effectively decreases the control over fishing mortality. ICCAT has had significant problems in implementing appropriate management measures in Atlantic bluefin tuna, indicating a higher risk should apply to all species under its auspices. Condition 3 has been raised to address issues arising References ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. ICCAT (2009) 8.1 Yellowfin Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
Score: 60 Skipjack - The fishery just meets the requirements under the 60 guideposts in terms of intention to control mortality. However the lack of a well-defined harvest control rule and lack of evidence that the contracting parties will be able to implement a reduction in TAC when called on to do so prevents a higher score under this performance indicator. Justification Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. There is no well-defined harvest control rule and therefore there is no specific plan of control if the stock size falls below the trigger point (MSY). There is clear evidence of intention to reduce harvest in the face of depletion. The scientific advice indicated that the current level of catch did not adversely affect other species, but advised against increases beyond the MSY level as this would adversely affect the other tuna species being targeted. Currently, it appears that the level of control is considered adequate by the Commission as the fishery is constrained by bycatch. In contrast, the external review panel noted that increased skipjack price would probably result in further pressure being applied to skipjack stocks and that ICCAT currently has no measures in place to manage the additional catches. The lack of any well-defined mechanism to apply controls should the stock become depleted prevents a higher score. There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. The current level of control, perhaps at least partly through controls placed on capacity, has resulted in sustainable catch levels for skipjack tuna, but it is apparent that there has so far perhaps been relatively little pressure to go after this stock compared to the more valuable tunas. Evidence is therefore limited to controls which could be placed on this species should this become necessary, and the ability of contracting parties to apply these limits. Condition 3 has been raised to address issues arising References ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. ICCAT (2009) 8.3 Skipjack Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 86 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 1.2.3 Information / Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of monitoring related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity, Relevant information composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock is collected to support support the harvest data is available to support abundance, fishery removals the harvest strategy strategy. the harvest strategy. and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available. Stock abundance and Stock abundance and fishery All information required by fishery removals are removals are regularly the harvest control rule is monitored and at least one monitored at a level of monitored with high indicator is available and accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree monitored with sufficient consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a frequency to support the control rule, and one or more good understanding of the harvest control rule. indicators are available and inherent uncertainties in the monitored with sufficient information [data] and the frequency to support the robustness of assessment and harvest control rule. management to this uncertainty. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.
Score: 80 Albacore - Data are sufficient to meet the 80 guideposts. Problems exist, but are being addressed and do not increase the risk for the assessment and management of the stock sufficiently to suggest a lower score. Justification Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Although data have been generally poor and ICCAT has had considerable problems in maintaining accurate data in its database, the situation is not so bad for southern albacore that a good stock assessment could not be carried out. There is adequate information on stock structure, productivity and the fleets to allow a full stock assessment to be completed. Furthermore, there is evidence that on-going research is planned to improve information and therefore the stock assessment indicating on-going development of data collection is adequate to detect and remove problems. The working group has recommended studies on fecundity and maturity and a tagging programme. Sources of errors in data collection are being investigated, leading to further directed research to reduce them. Ageing errors have been estimated and greater standardisation on the approach to improve precision has been recommended. Further evidence of on-going improvement is the new growth estimates available for the southern albacore stock in 2006. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. While far from perfect, monitoring indices are adequate for the current harvest control rule. Indicators of stock abundance mainly consist of standardised catch-per-unit-effort indices. Given the large areas of ocean and dispersal of the species, dedicated surveys are not an option for this type of fishery. A single consistent index is not available for the entire time series, but the combined indices do appear to provide a consistent picture of the changes in abundance that have occurred. Recommendations have included improved size composition coverage and CPUE standardisation. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. ICCAT has put considerable effort in getting countries to record and report catches. The current level of reporting is far from perfect given the number of small countries involved and difficulties in monitoring small vessels and activities in pelagic waters well away from the coast. This illustrates the on-going problems ICCAT faces with the contracting parties. Nevertheless, catches are recorded increasing well with decreasing IUU fishing activity, and data are sufficiently well recorded for the stock
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 87 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD assessment and for assessing the level of control sought by ICCAT over landed catches. Note that this is in contrast to the Mediterranean fisheries, where information provision to ICCAT appears currently inadequate. Recommendation 1 has been raised to improve reporting to ICCAT References ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. ICCAT (2009) 8.4 Albacore Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Albacore Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/015 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(3): 697-815. Lee, L.K. and S-Y. Yeh. 2007. Age and growth of South Atlantic albacore – a revision after the revelation of otolith daily ring counts. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 60(2): 443-456. Davies, C.A., D. Brophy, P. Megalofonou, E. Gosling, N. Griffin, B. Leroy and N. Clear (2008) Age Estimation In Calcified Calcareous Structures; Preliminary Findings Of An Inter-Laboratory Comparison SCRS/2007/102 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(3): 899-910.
Score: 80 Bigeye - Data are sufficient to meet the 80 guideposts. Problems exist, but are being addressed and do not increase the risk for the assessment and management of the stock sufficiently to suggest a lower score. Justification Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Although data have been generally poor and ICCAT has had considerable problems in maintaining accurate data in its database, the situation is not so bad for bigeye tuna that a good stock assessment could not be carried out. There is adequate information on stock structure, productivity and the fleets to allow a full stock assessment to be completed. For example, data were adequate to implement and evaluate a seasonal closure to reduce catches of small bigeye. Furthermore, there is evidence that on-going research is planned to improve information and therefore the stock assessment indicating on-going development of data collection is adequate to detect and remove problems. The working group has recommended studies on fecundity and maturity and a tagging programme. Sources of errors in data collection are being investigated, leading to further directed research to reduce them. Further evidence of on-going improvement is the new length weight relationship based on the evaluation of observer data for the Chinese Taipei fleet. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. While far from perfect, monitoring indices are adequate for the current harvest control rule. Indicators of stock abundance mainly consist of standardised catch-per-unit-effort indices. Given the large areas of ocean and dispersal of the species, dedicated surveys are not an option for this type of fishery. A single consistent index is not available for the entire time series, but the combined indices do appear to provide a consistent picture of the changes in abundance that have occurred. This year, two new indices of relative abundance and updated indices of those previously used were made available to the Committee for use in the assessment, making in total six indices. The Japanese and Chinese Taipei’s longline index account for the longest time series and majority of the catch. The external review panel recommended, among other things, that efforts continue to be made to improve the timeliness and accuracy of fisheries data, and therefore this is likely to be an on-going process. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. ICCAT has put considerable effort in getting countries to record and report catches. The current level of reporting is far from perfect given the number of small countries involved and difficulties in monitoring small vessels and activities in pelagic waters well away from the coast. This illustrates the on-going problems ICCAT faces with the contracting parties. Nevertheless, catches are recorded increasing well with decreasing IUU fishing activity, and data are sufficiently well recorded for the stock assessment and for assessing the level of control sought by ICCAT over landed catches. ICCAT operate a Statistical Document Program through recommendations 01-21 and 01-22, which establish very detailed programs for bigeye tuna and swordfish. Although not perfect, this sort of documentation scheme makes marketing IUU catch more difficult. Although there has been an apparent strong decrease of the so-called ‘IUU’ bigeye catch, the Working Group was concerned that unreported catches from the Atlantic might have been poorly estimated and may be continuing, but available statistical data collection is insufficient to investigate this fully. This could have implications if these catches turn out to have been
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 88 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD underestimated as has occurred with bluefin tuna. Recommendation 1 has been raised to improve reporting to ICCAT References ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. ICCAT (2009) 8.2 Bigeye Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Bigeye Tuna Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/013 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(1): 97-239
Score: 80 Yellowfin - Data are sufficient to meet the 80 guideposts. Problems exist, but are being addressed and do not increase the risk for the assessment and management of the stock sufficiently to suggest a lower score. Justification Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Although data have been generally poor and ICCAT has had considerable problems in maintaining accurate data in its database, the situation is not so bad for yellowfin tuna that a reasonable stock assessment could not be attempted. There is adequate information on stock structure, productivity and the fleets to allow a full stock assessment to be completed. Furthermore, there is evidence that on-going research is planned to improve information and therefore the stock assessment indicating on-going development of data collection is adequate to detect and remove problems. The working group has recommended studies on fecundity and maturity and a tagging programme, although these have not been directed at yellowfin. Various scientific studies using available data are regularly presented at ICCAT scientific meetings. Sources of errors in data collection are being investigated, leading to further directed research to reduce them. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. While far from perfect, monitoring indices are adequate for the current harvest control rule. Indicators of stock abundance mainly consist of standardised catch-per-unit-effort indices. Given the large areas of ocean and dispersal of the species, dedicated surveys are not an option for this type of fishery. Two abundance indices are available for the entire time series covering the majority range of the stock. The Japanese and Chinese Taipei’s longline index account for the longest time series and majority of the catch. The external review panel recommended, among other things, that efforts continue to be made to improve the timeliness and accuracy of fisheries data, and therefore this is likely to be an on-going process. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. ICCAT has put considerable effort in getting countries to record and report catches. The current level of reporting is far from perfect given the number of small countries involved and difficulties in monitoring small vessels and activities in pelagic waters well away from the coast. This illustrates the on-going problems ICCAT faces with the contracting parties. Nevertheless, catches are recorded increasing well with decreasing IUU fishing activity, and data are sufficiently well recorded for the stock assessment and for assessing the level of control sought by ICCAT over landed catches. Note that this is in contrast to the Mediterranean fisheries, where information provision to ICCAT appears currently inadequate. Recommendation 1 has been raised to improve reporting to ICCAT References ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. ICCAT (2009) 8.1 Yellowfin Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
Score: 70 Skipjack - Data are not of sufficient quality to meet the 80 guideposts, and in particular information on stock structure,
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 89 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD productivity and quality of abundance indices are limiting the quality of the stock assessments being applied. Justification Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy. The external review panel was concerned that there appears to be little knowledge and information on skipjack tuna. Data have been generally poor and ICCAT has had considerable problems in maintaining accurate data in its database. In the case of skipjack, data limitations are significant enough to prevent quality stock assessments from being carried out. There is adequate information on the fleets, but information on stock structure and productivity seems to be a limiting factor for this stock. The working group appears to believe, among other things, that the eastern stock comprises of a series of sub-stocks for which the structure is not well understood. Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. While far from perfect, a monitoring index is adequate for the current harvest control rule, although it is likely to be imprecise. The indicators of stock abundance mainly consist of standardised catch-per-unit-effort indices, but these are generally poor for skipjack as it is likely that catchability changes have occurred within the time series and indices may suffer from localised abundance effects which may not apply to the whole stock. Given the large areas of ocean and dispersal of the species, scientific surveys are not an option for this type of fishery. A catch-only model was also applied, which does not depend on abundance indices and gave broadly similar results as the assessments where CPUE indices were used, although the maximum sustainable yield was estimated as a lower value. The abundance indices are not sufficiently accurate to support likely improvements required in the harvest control rule, preventing the fishery meeting the higher guidepost. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. ICCAT has put considerable effort in getting countries to record and report catches. The current level of reporting is far from perfect given the number of small countries involved and difficulties in monitoring small vessels and activities in pelagic waters well away from the coast. This illustrates the on-going problems ICCAT faces with the contracting parties. Nevertheless, catches are recorded increasing well with decreasing IUU fishing activity, and data are sufficiently well recorded for the stock assessment and for assessing the level of control sought by ICCAT over landed catches. Note that this is in contrast to the Mediterranean fisheries, where information provision to ICCAT appears currently inadequate. Skipjack catches appear to be recorded accurately enough across all fisheries and are not the limiting factor on this stock. Condition 2 has been raised to address issues arising Recommendation 1 has been raised to improve reporting to ICCAT References ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. ICCAT (2009) 8.3 Skipjack Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 90 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 1.2.4 Assessment of stock The assessment estimates The assessment is appropriate The assessment is appropriate status stock status relative to for the stock and for the for the stock and for the reference points. harvest control rule, and is harvest control rule and takes There is an adequate evaluating stock status into account the major assessment of the relative to reference points. features relevant to the stock status biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The major sources of The assessment takes The assessment takes into uncertainty are identified. uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. The stock assessment is The assessment has been subject to peer review. internally and externally peer reviewed.
Score: 85 Albacore - The stock assessment methods used make good use of the available information, cover a range of approaches limited by the available data and are explicitly dealing with uncertainty, slightly exceeding the requirements for the 80 guideposts. Justification The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. Various stock assessment models and software are applied. All methods and model structures are generic, but are structured to take advantage of the available data. Available software includes a variety of methods also used in other tuna fisheries and for other national stocks (including stock synthesis, ASPM, Multifan-CL and Bayesian biomass dynamics models). An updated Age Structured Production Model (ASPM) is used to assess the South Atlantic Albacore stock, which is fitted to the available data using a Bayesian (probabilistic) approach. Life history model parameters are specific to the stock and/or species and have been derived from fitting stock assessment models or other independent research. There is evidence that the growth model has been revised based on updated information. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. The main ASPM assessment used is stochastic (Bayesian) and reports results in a probabilistic way. This suggests that risk could be taken into account in assessing the stock, but it is not clear that consideration of risk is included in management decision making. No explicit reference is made to levels of risk in scientific advice and tables use predominantly the median estimates for the Southern albacore assessment. Therefore, this guidepost is only partially met. The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Some alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been explored. Alternative software has been applied to the available data, although this falls short of a rigorous exploration of alternative hypotheses and approaches to assessment. Despite the ASPM having been updated in 2004, new approaches have not resulted in a fundamental change to the approach. The results of the preliminary MFCL runs were viewed by the working group as unsatisfactory for various reasons. Alternative methods have been looked at in linking size to age, but the methods reviewed so far have not been exhaustive. There are recommendations to continue work on developing improved statistical models. Overall, the stock assessment has only partially met the 100 guidepost. The stock assessment is subject to peer review. The stock assessment is subject to review through a working group process. SCRS meet annually and review models, data and research on the main tuna species as well as other species within ICCAT jurisdiction. Although external review has taken place of the management system, there is no external technical review of the stock assessments. Given the large number of countries and scientists involved in the assessments, it is not clear that external review is necessary however.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 91 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
References ICCAT (2009) 8.4 Albacore Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Albacore Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/015 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(3): 697-815. Rademeyer, R.A., D.S. Butterworth and A.J. Penney (2004) A Bayesian Assessment of the South Atlantic population of albacore which explicitly models changes in targeting. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 56(4): 1360-1390.
Score: 80 Bigeye - The stock assessment methods used make good use of the available information, cover a range of approaches limited by the available data and are explicitly dealing with uncertainty, slightly exceeding the requirements for the 80 guideposts. Justification The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. Various stock assessment models and software are applied. All methods and model structures are generic, but are structured to take advantage of the available data. Available software includes a variety of methods also used in other tuna fisheries and for other national stocks (including stock synthesis, VPA, production models, Multifan-CL and Bayesian biomass dynamics models). The main advice is obtained from relatively simple, but robust, production models. Although this ignores the size composition data, it also does not have to account for potential errors in this source of information. The assessment takes uncertainty into account. Although among the assessments undertaken, stochastic (Bayesian) approaches are used, these results are reported along with other assessment approaches suggesting structural errors are considered more important in this assessment. Although this clearly accounts for uncertainty, the results are not treated in a probabilistic way, preventing a higher score. It is not clear that explicit consideration of risk is included in management decision making and no explicit reference is made to levels of risk in scientific advice. The assessment has been tested. Some alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been explored. Alternative software has been applied to the available data, although this falls short of a rigorous exploration of alternative hypotheses and approaches to assessment. The simplest model, the biomass dynamics model, is being used as the main source of management advice. Importantly, this ignores the available size composition data and will potentially give poor results if there are changes in selectivity in the fishery. The other assessment methods are used to provide indications of uncertainty by providing a range of possible results. The production models used for advice represent an approximate mid-point in the range of results which are quite wide, making it questionable whether this result is robust. There are recommendations to continue work on developing improved statistical models. Overall, the stock assessment has only partially met the 100 guidepost, but not adequately to meet the higher score requirements. The stock assessment is subject to peer review. The stock assessment is subject to review through a working group process. SCRS meet annually and review models, data and research on the main tuna species as well as other species within ICCAT jurisdiction. Although external review has taken place of the management system, there is no external technical review of the stock assessments. Given the large number of countries and scientists involved in the assessments, it is not clear that external review is necessary however. References ICCAT (2009) 8.2 Bigeye Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2007 ICCAT Bigeye Tuna Stock Assessment Session. Madrid, Spain - July 5 to 12, 2007. SCRS/2007/013 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 62(1): 97-239
Score: 80 Yellowfin - The stock assessment methods used make good use of the available information, cover a range of approaches limited by the available data and are explicitly dealing with uncertainty, slightly exceeding the requirements for the 80 guideposts.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 92 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Justification The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. Various stock assessment models and software are applied. All methods and model structures are generic, but are structured to take advantage of the available data. Available software includes a variety of methods also used in other tuna fisheries and for other national stocks (including stock synthesis, VPA, production models, Multifan-CL and Bayesian biomass dynamics models). The main advice is obtained from relatively simple, but robust, virtual population analysis model which makes use of the estimated catch-at-age. The assessment takes uncertainty into account. Although the assessments undertaken include fully stochastic (Bayesian) and sampling simulation or “bootstrap” approaches, these results are reported along with other assessment approaches suggesting structural errors are also considered important in this assessment. The working group was unable to choose between two structures for the catch-at-age model used for management advice, and therefore combined the estimates from both. Although this clearly accounts for uncertainty, the results are not treated in a probabilistic way, preventing a higher score. It is not clear that explicit consideration of risk is included in management decision making and no explicit reference is made to levels of risk in scientific advice. The assessment has been tested. Some alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been explored. Alternative software has been applied to the available data, although this falls short of a rigorous exploration of alternative hypotheses and approaches to assessment. An age-structured population (VPA) is being used as the main source of management advice and this has been fitted with many different configurations in terms of data used and assumptions made in the model. The other assessment methods are used to provide indications of uncertainty by providing a range of possible results. There are recommendations to continue work on developing improved statistical models. Overall, the stock assessment has only partially met the 100 guidepost, but not adequately to meet the higher score requirements. The stock assessment is subject to peer review. The stock assessment is subject to review through a working group process. SCRS meet annually and review models, data and research on the main tuna species as well as other species within ICCAT jurisdiction. Although external review has taken place of the management system, there is no external technical review of the stock assessments. Given the large number of countries and scientists involved in the assessments, it is not clear that external review is necessary however. References ICCAT (2009) 8.1 Yellowfin Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. English version. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
Score: 80 Skipjack - The stock assessment methods used make good use of the available information, cover a range of approaches limited by the available data and are explicitly dealing with uncertainty, slightly exceeding the requirements for the 80 guideposts. Justification The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. Various stock assessment models and software are applied. All methods and model structures are generic, but are structured to take advantage of the available data. Available software includes a variety of methods also used in other tuna fisheries and for other national stocks (including stock synthesis, VPA, production models, Multifan-CL and Bayesian biomass dynamics models). The main advice is obtained from relatively simple, but robust, production models. Although this ignores the size composition data, it also does not have to account for potential errors in this source of information. Therefore, the limitations on the stock assessment are due to the data scored under PI 1.2.3. The assessment takes uncertainty into account. Although among the assessments undertaken, stochastic (Bayesian) approaches are used, these results are reported along with other assessment approaches suggesting structural errors are considered more important in this assessment. Although this clearly accounts for uncertainty, the results are not treated in a probabilistic way, preventing a higher score. It is not clear that explicit consideration of risk is included in management decision making and no explicit reference is made to levels of risk in scientific advice.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 93 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The assessment has been tested. Some alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been explored. Alternative software has been applied to the available data, although this falls short of a rigorous exploration of alternative hypotheses and approaches to assessment. The simplest model, the biomass dynamics model, is being used as the main source of management advice. Importantly, this ignores the available size composition data and will potentially give poor results if there are changes in selectivity in the fishery. The other assessment methods are used to provide indications of uncertainty by providing a range of possible results. Overall, the stock assessment has only partially met the 100 guidepost, but not adequately to meet the higher score requirements. The stock assessment is subject to peer review. The stock assessment is subject to review through a working group process. SCRS meet annually and review models, data and research on the main tuna species as well as other species within ICCAT jurisdiction. Although external review has taken place of the management system, there is no external technical review of the stock assessments. Given the large number of countries and scientists involved in the assessments, it is not clear that external review is necessary however. References ICCAT (2009) 8.3 Skipjack Tuna Executive Summary ICCAT Report 2008-2009. Report for Biennial Period 2008-09. Part I Vol. 1. ICCAT (2008) Report of the 2008 ICCAT Yellowfin And Skipjack Stock Assessments Meeting (Florianópolis, Brazil – July 21 to 29, 2008). English version. SCRS/2008/016.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 94 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.
2.1 Retained non-target species
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.1.1 Status Main retained species are Main retained species are There is a high degree of likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that retained species The fishery does not biologically based limits or biologically based limits, or if are within biologically based pose a risk of serious if outside the limits there outside the limits there is a limits. or irreversible harm to are measures in place that partial strategy of the retained species are expected to ensure that demonstrably effective and does not hinder the fishery does not hinder management measures in recovery of depleted recovery and rebuilding of place such that the fishery retained species. the depleted species. does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. If the status is poorly Target reference points are known there are measures defined and retained species or practices in place that are at or fluctuating around are expected to result in their target reference points. the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.
Score: 75
Justification
Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. The main retained species are wahoo, dorado, cavalley, blue marlin and white marlin. Publicly available stock assessment information is available for blue marlin and white marlin; the assessment of these species is therefore based on the standard FAM. For the other species no stock assessment information is available, therefore the risk based methodology is used. FAM Assessment Blue Marlin – ICCAT concludes that this species is overfished and the fishery is being rebuilt. There are some signs that the decline in population has been stabilised presumably as a result of measures implemented to date by ICCAT. Given the scale of this fishery, it does not hinder recovery or rebuilding (60). White marlin – ICCAT concludes that this species is overfished and the fishery is being rebuilt. There is evidence that stock status is improving, presumably as a result of measures implemented to date by ICCAT. Given the scale of this fishery, it does not hinder recovery or rebuilding (70). ICCAT has allocated St Helena a billfish quota of 20t per year – which compares with landings of less than 5t per year, well within quota. RBF Assessment When using the RBF methodology in Principle 2, only the overlap of the stock with the fishing activity of the unit of certification is scored (i.e. not the overlap with all fishing activity affecting that stock). Scoping, SICA & PSA tables for relevant species are provided in Appendix 4. For the other large pelagic species (dorado, cavalley, wahoo) the St Helena tuna fishery accounts for insignificant removals of these bycatch species in the context of the wider Atlantic fishery. For this reason, the consequence of removal of the unit of certification is low risk (90).
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 95 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Shark species are occasionally retained but are predominantly discarded and are therefore dealt with under PI 2.2.1 Condition 4 has been raised to address issues arising focusing on the marlin species retained in the fishery. References SICA and PSA tables – Appendix 4 ICCAT (2006) Report of the 2006 ICCAT billfish stock assessment - Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 60(5): 1431-1546 (2007), Chapter 8.6 Blue & White Marlin, and Chapter 8.11 – Small tunas (inc. Wahoo). ICCAT (2007) 8.6 Blue & White Marlin ICCAT Report 2006-2007. Report for Biennial Period 2006-07. Part II Vol. 2. ICCAT (2007) 8.11 Small tunas (inc. Wahoo) ICCAT Report 2006-2007. Report for Biennial Period 2006-07. Part II Vol. 2.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 96 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.1.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary that is managing retained species. There is a strategy in expected to maintain the expected to maintain the place for managing main retained species at main retained species at retained species that is levels which are highly levels which are highly likely designed to ensure the likely to be within to be within biologically based fishery does not pose a biologically based limits, or limits, or to ensure the fishery risk of serious or to ensure the fishery does does not hinder their recovery irreversible harm to not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. retained species. and rebuilding. The measures are There is some objective basis The strategy is mainly based considered likely to work, for confidence that the partial on information directly about based on plausible strategy will work, based on the fishery and/or species argument (e.g., general some information directly involved, and testing supports experience, theory or about the fishery and/or high confidence that the comparison with similar species involved. strategy will work. fisheries/species). There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is achieving its implemented successfully. overall objective.
Score: 80
Justification There is a partial strategy in place if necessary that is expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is an overall operational strategy in place to maximise capture of target tuna species – namely using appropriate bait, fishing in known spots and during known seasons. In this way catches of other species are minimised. However, as indicated above, some other species are caught, and their management is considered below: Marlin species: ICCAT proposes a number of specific management measures to address the rebuilding of Blue and White Marlin. This partial strategy focuses on areas of greatest concern and potential impact to the fishery - namely large scale fisheries using long line and purse seine metiers. In the view of ICCAT no management actions are necessary to be applied in the context of the St Helena fishery, or by the metiers covered by this assessment. There is therefore objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work and that this fishery does not therefore hinder recovery or rebuilding of marlin species. For other large pelagic fish Dorado, cavalley: As only very small quantities of these productive species are removed and these are not target fisheries, it can be demonstrated that this is a low risk component of the retained bycatch (refer to SICA & PSA score). An effective management strategy is therefore not a necessary requirement of certification for dorado and cavalley. Wahoo: Larger quantities of wahoo are retained as a bycatch in the tuna fisheries and the species is often regarded as an equal target species when trolling for tuna (although this species is not considered for assessment). Nonetheless, wahoo is deemed to be a low risk species using both the SICA and the PSA assessment. There are no ICCAT regulations or management recommendations for small tunas (which in this case is also considered to include wahoo). In the context of St Helena, the fishery does not appear vulnerable to the existing low level of fishing activity. This is deemed to be adequate, however, given the larger scale of this local activity, improvements in this score above 80 would require more active management of this stock for St Helena and / or the whole Atlantic stock.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 97 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Recommendation 3 has been raised for the development of an appropriate management strategy for the St Helena wahoo References SICA and PSA tables – Appendix 4 ICCAT (2006) Report of the 2006 ICCAT billfish stock assessment - Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 60(5): 1431-1546 (2007), Chapter 8.6 Blue & White Marlin, and Chapter 8.11 – Small tunas (inc. Wahoo). ICCAT (2007) 8.6 Blue & White Marlin ICCAT Report 2006-2007. Report for Biennial Period 2006-07. Part II Vol. 2. ICCAT (2007) 8.11 Small tunas (inc. Wahoo) ICCAT Report 2006-2007. Report for Biennial Period 2006-07. Part II Vol. 2.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 98 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.1.3 Information / Qualitative information is Qualitative information and Accurate and verifiable monitoring available on the amount of some quantitative information is available on the main retained species taken information are available on catch of all retained species Information on the by the fishery. the amount of main retained and the consequences for the nature and extent of species taken by the fishery. status of affected populations. retained species is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to determine the risk qualitatively assess estimate outcome status with quantitatively estimate posed by the fishery outcome status with respect to biologically based outcome status with a high and the effectiveness respect to biologically limits. degree of certainty. of the strategy to based limits. manage retained species. Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive manage main retained manage main retained strategy to manage retained species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty
whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be Monitoring of retained collected to detect any species is conducted in increase in risk level (e.g. due sufficient detail to assess to changes in the outcome ongoing mortalities to all indicator scores or the retained species. operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).
Score: 75
Justification Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. ICCAT provides a source of information, with historical details of the main retained bycatch species (marlin & wahoo). ICCAT do not require landings information for dorado or cavalley. There has been a lack of reporting for marlin and wahoo landings to ICCAT in recent years (same issue applies for 1.2.3). It is not clear whether this gap in the data that ICCAT hold for previous years is due to a failure to report (by St Helena or the FCO) or a failure to record this information (by ICCAT). Certainly the process that data has to go through to pass from St Helena (initially recorded by the Argos processing company in St Helena) to ICCAT is complex (rather than direct reporting), meaning there is scope for data to be lost. Furthermore, it is not clear that marlin catches are appropriately divided up by species type (for example if is thought that sail fish may from time to time be included as marlin). For this reason, 5 points are withheld and a condition is triggered. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main retained species. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). The local fishery department have provided good landings data for all species, which is accurate and verifiable and it can be derived which are caught when targeting the assessed tuna species. This information is adequate to support the partial management strategies that are in place for the main retained species and sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level. There is no quantitative recording of baitfish catches, however the species, average daily catch, and number of fishing days, can be estimated – at a maximum 12 vessels x 100 50g baitfish per day x 250 days per year = 15t; in practice something more like 3 to 5t extracted per year - this is deemed sufficient for a low risk species. Condition 4 has been raised to address issues raised focusing on the marlin species retained in the fishery. Recommendation 1 has been raised to improve reporting to ICCAT
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 99 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
References ANRD and SHFC landings and purchase statistical datasets St Helena ANRD - pers comms. Argos Atlantic Cold Stores – pers. comms
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 100 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
2.2 Discarded species (also known as “bycatch” or “discards”)
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.2.1 Status Main bycatch species are Main bycatch species are There is a high degree of likely to be within highly likely to be within certainty that bycatch species The fishery does not biologically based limits, or biologically based limits or if are within biologically based pose a risk of serious if outside such limits there outside such limits there is a limits. or irreversible harm to are mitigation measures in partial strategy of the bycatch species or place that are expected to demonstrably effective species groups and ensure that the fishery does mitigation measures in place does not hinder not hinder recovery and such that the fishery does not recovery of depleted rebuilding. hinder recovery and bycatch species or rebuilding. species groups. If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.
Score: 80
Justification Main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside such limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Very few species are discarded in this fishery. The gear type is highly selective, typically only catching commercial species – certainly only catching pelagic species. Only a very small proportion of the overall catch is discarded. Trips with no discarding are not uncommon. The main species that are occasionally discarded in the fishery include short fin mako shark, blue shark and thresher shark. The status of all of these species are considered by ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) shark working group. Their assessment concludes for short fin mako shark there is “a non-negligible probability that the (…) stock could be below the biomass that could support MSY” but that due to contradictory assessment conclusions “the Committee can draw no conclusions about the status of the South stock”. For blue shark the committee concludes that “although the results are highly uncertain, biomass is believed to be above the biomass that would support MSY and current harvest levels below FMSY”. The ICCAT shark working group also undertook ecological risk assessments (ERA) for nine additional priority species of pelagic elasmobranchs, for which available data are very limited. This included thresher shark (Alopias vulpinus) and concluded that this was a higher productivity species (than most of the other pelagic shark species considered). In summary, of the species thought to occasionally interact with St Helena fishery, short fin mako is considered to be the most at risk. When considering management for these species, ICCAT focuses the majority of attention on longline fisheries. When considering the unit of certification (i.e. this fishery) it can be concluded that the scale of catches are insignificant, and on the scale of overall species distribution is unlikely to hinder recovery and rebuilding – if indeed the species is outside biologically based limits. In addition we consider the status of the baitfish fisheries used in the target tuna fisheries (mainly Decapterus spp. plus some mackerel). For these species no stock assessment information is available, therefore the risk based methodology is used. RBF Assessment When using the RBF methodology in Principle 2, only the overlap of the stock with the fishing activity of the unit of certification is scored (i.e. not the overlap with all fishing activity affecting that stock). Scoping, SICA & PSA tables for relevant species are provided in Appendix 4. For the baitfish fishery, the stock is more local – restricted to St Helenan shelf waters but found all around the island. The species is not a targeted fishery for consumption. Although baitfish is collected regularly and routinely, it is only fished in a small
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 101 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD locality along the north west side of the island, therefore the intensity of the fishery is low. It is notable that permanent moorings are in place at the baitfishing sites – indicating that searching for baitfish is not necessary. As a result the consequence of removal on the unit of certification is low risk (90). References ICCAT (2007) Report of the 2006 ICCAT billfish stock assessment - Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 60(5): 1431-1546 (2007), Chapter 8.12 sharks. English version.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 102 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.2.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, which place, if necessary, for managing and minimising There is a strategy in are expected to maintain managing bycatch that is bycatch. place for managing main bycatch species at expected to maintain main bycatch that is levels which are highly bycatch species at levels designed to ensure the likely to be within which are highly likely to be fishery does not pose a biologically based limits or within biologically based limits risk of serious or to ensure that the fishery or to ensure that the fishery irreversible harm to does not hinder their does not hinder their bycatch populations. recovery. recovery. The measures are There is some objective basis The strategy is mainly based considered likely to work, for confidence that the partial on information directly about based on plausible strategy will work, based on the fishery and/or species argument (e.g. general some information directly involved, and testing supports experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the high confidence that the comparison with similar species involved. strategy will work. fisheries/species). There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.
Score: 75
Justification There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. The characteristics of fishery operation - baited rod and line, in few isolated fishing areas - mean that catching is selective and discarded bycatch is therefore rare. If bycatch percentages are high then fishing activity is relocated – although this is not formally recognised as a strategy. Given the scale of the fishery compared to the scale of the most vulnerable discarded resource (short fin mako shark), it is highly unlikely to hinder their recovery. The measures in place for minimising bycatch would more readily be regarded as a strategy (or even partial strategy) if there were coherent and complementary guidelines and reporting requirements. Baitfish: the low level of management (namely informal, observation-based assessment by both fishers and local managers) is sufficient – or at least further management is not necessary for the purposes of this assessment - as it has been demonstrated that this is a low risk fishery. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. And there is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. There is evidence (from on board observations by the assessor and in conversation with skippers and managers) that the measures referred to above are being implemented and are likely to work – above all, discarded bycatch rates continue to remain low in this fishery. Condition 5 has been raised to address these issues focusing on development of a code of practice to release mako sharks alive, using the most appropriate technique. Recommendation 4 has been raised to encourage develop a Code of Practice on how to handle discarded bycatch and ETP interactions to maximise survival of released organisms and to record such interactions. References on board observations
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 103 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.2.3 Information / Qualitative information is Qualitative information and Accurate and verifiable monitoring available on the amount of some quantitative information is available on the main bycatch species information are available on amount of all bycatch and the Information on the affected by the fishery. the amount of main bycatch consequences for the status nature and amount of species affected by the of affected populations. bycatch is adequate to fishery. determine the risk posed by the fishery Information is adequate to Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to and the effectiveness broadly understand estimate outcome status with quantitatively estimate of the strategy to outcome status with respect to biologically based outcome status with respect manage bycatch. respect to biologically limits. to biologically based limits based limits. with a high degree of
certainty.
Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to support a partial strategy to support a comprehensive manage bycatch. manage main bycatch species. strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high
degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective. Sufficient data continue to be Monitoring of bycatch data is collected to detect any conducted in sufficient detail increase in risk to main to assess ongoing mortalities bycatch species (e.g. due to to all bycatch species. changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).
Score: 75
Justification Qualitative information and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. There is a good level of qualitative information available, supported by interpretation of some historical and more recent quantitative information from the sales record for shark species – although this is often not species specific. This gives an indication of the species that are being caught. However exact figures for discards of these species are not available and it is necessary to rely on anecdotal information. Where sharks are caught and killed they should be reported to ICCAT – it is not clear that this is always happening. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). Given the small scale of the fishery, the rarity of shark bycatch and the large range of the shark species concerned, the available information is sufficient to estimate impact on outcome status and support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. However, at the scale of the assessed fishery, it is NOT possible to state that sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk – although at ICCAT level changes to the stock outcome status may well be detected. The coverage of Condition 6, raised in relation to PI 3.3.3 (recording of ETP interactions), is extended to this PI to encourage the recording of all interactions with sharks, other discarded species, as well as with ETP species References ANRD and SHFC landings and purchase statistical datasets St Helena ANRD – pers. comms.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 104 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
SHFC – pers. comms. Argos Atlantic Cold Stores – pers. comms.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 105 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
2.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.3.1 Status Known effects of the fishery The effects of the fishery are There is a high degree of are likely to be within limits known and are highly likely to certainty that the effects of The fishery meets of national and be within limits of national the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements and international national and international international for protection of ETP requirements for protection requirements for protection requirements for species. of ETP species. of ETP species. protection of ETP species. Known direct effects are Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are no The fishery does not unacceptable impacts to unacceptable impacts to ETP significant detrimental effects pose a risk of serious ETP species. species. (direct and indirect) of the or irreversible harm to fishery on ETP species. ETP species and does not hinder recovery of Indirect effects have been ETP species. considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts.
Score: 80
Justification The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. There are a number of endangered threatened and protected species occurring in the waters around St Helena. Two species of turtle occur, although neither is common, with little reason to visit St Helena due to lack of suitable nesting sites. These species are Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) (CITES Annex I)) and the Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) (CITES Annex I and IUCN Critically Endangered). Three species of dolphin occur, of which by far the most common is bridled dolphin (Stenalla attenuate), followed by the bottlenose dolphin, known locally as “cowfish” (Tursiops truncates). The other dolphin thought to have occurred in St Helena is the Spinner dolphin (Stenalla longirostris), although this dates from an old record (1926) and fishermen do not report seeing this distinctive species. All 3 dolphin species are listed in Annex II of CITES. It is unclear whether or not shark species occurring in St Helena waters are listed on any of the CITES annexes, since clear species identification of retained and discarded bycatch is not routinely recorded. Of note, two species of hammerhead shark, Sphyrna lewini and S. mokarran are both listed by IUCN as endangered and occur the eastern Atlantic. The laws of St Helena (chapter 75 – endangered species protection ordinance – 2001 revision) lists the ETP species for St Helena. All of the above dolphin and turtle species are included in this law. This law also lists several seabirds, some of which may interact with the fishery, for example some birds may take bait. The species include:
• Pickering or Maderian Storm Petrel, • Trophy bird, • Brown noddy • Sooty bird • Sooty sheerwater • Brown booby Direct effects are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. Of all of the species listed above, the only likely (and known) interactions with the fishery under certification are with bird species such as the brown noddy and the red billed tropic bird being occasionally (and accidentally) hooked. These are mainly released alive, but it is estimated that this may lead to (a maximum) of perhaps one bird death per month. This is highly likely to be within the limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species and is also highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. Indirect effects such as impacts caused by gear loss, discarded offal, waste and pollution have also been considered, and – given
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 106 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD the scale of the fishery and the operational practices employed - are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. References The laws of St Helena (revision January 2001) chapter 75 – endangered species protection ordinance GSH (2001) The laws of St Helena (revision January 2001) chapter 75 – endangered species protection ordinance Edwards. A. (1990). Fish and Fisheries of St Helena Island. University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. ISBN 0-9516480-0-4 ANRD (2009) Marine monitoring programme - Database of marine sightings from marine life sightings programme, 2004 to 2009 CITES (2009) Appendix I and II listings ANRD (2009) Marine monitoring programme – survey results of seabird colony monitoring, 2006 to 2009
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 107 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.3.2 Management strategy There are measures in place There is a strategy in place for There is a comprehensive that minimise mortality, managing the fishery’s impact strategy in place for managing The fishery has in and are expected to be on ETP species, including the fishery’s impact on ETP place precautionary highly likely to achieve measures to minimise species, including measures to management national and international mortality, that is designed to minimise mortality, that is strategies designed to: requirements for the be highly likely to achieve designed to achieve above protection of ETP species. national and international national and international requirements for the requirements for the
protection of ETP species. protection of ETP species.
The measures are There is an objective basis for The strategy is mainly based considered likely to work, confidence that the strategy on information directly about based on plausible will work, based on some the fishery and/or species argument (eg general information directly about the involved, and a quantitative experience, theory or fishery and/or the species analysis supports high comparison with similar involved. confidence that the strategy fisheries/species). will work. There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. There is a strategy in place for There is clear evidence that managing the fishery’s impact the strategy is being on ETP species, including implemented successfully, measures to minimise and intended changes are mortality, that is designed to occurring. There is evidence be highly likely to achieve that the strategy is achieving national and international its objective. requirements for the protection of ETP species.
Score: 75
Justification There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, that is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. The fishermen have a strategy to avoid most ETP species. This comprises of several measures, including fishing by hook to reduce capture of turtles, shifting fishing grounds when dolphins are sighted in the vicinity, and avoiding capture of birds by not putting baited hooks out in a manner which will capture birds. Where this does not work and seabirds take that bait, fishermen will immediately seek to remove the bird (before it can either swallow the hook or drown). In addition, St Helena, as a member of the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation is a contracting party to the conservation measure 05/06 on reducing incidental bycatch of seabirds. Under this commitment St Helena undertakes to develop improved reporting protocols and requires contracting parties to seek to achieve reductions in levels of seabird by-catch across all fishing areas, seasons, and fisheries through the use of effective mitigation measures. There is objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. The key weakness with the local strategy is the information monitoring element - to enable practices to be modified in event of unacceptable impacts. This weakness is addressed in the next performance indicator (2.3.3). ICCAT also undertakes routine work to estimate the total amount of seabird bycatch in the ICCAT area. This includes providing details of the main species and gear type interactions – this clearly shows that longline fisheries are the principal concern. Recent work of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics sub-committee on ecosystems estimated a total seabird bycatch from all fisheries within the ICCAT Convention Area at 145,494 birds annually. ICCAT is specifically working to address the issue of seabird bycatch, although the majority of the focus (appropriately given the known impacts and likely risks) focuses on large scale long line fisheries.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 108 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. The St Helena department of agriculture and natural resources monitor the status of all ETP species in the territory (evidence of implementation) – including surveying turtle grounds and interactions. However, there is a lack of a clear management strategy to monitor seabird deaths or to determine an acceptable level of seabird deaths caused by fishing. We therefore suggest a recommendation that the information provided on ETP interactions with the fishery (as a result of the condition applied in PI 2.3.3) be used by the St Helena department of agriculture and natural resources as a basis for developing a strategy and determining acceptable impacts. Condition 5 has been raised to require the development of an appropriate strategy for management of ETP interactions. Recommendation 2 has been raised to establish acceptable levels fishery related mortality of protected seabirds. Recommendation 4 has been raised to encourage development of a Code of Practice on how to handle discarded bycatch and ETP interactions to maximise survival of released organisms and to record such interactions. References ANRD (2009) Marine monitoring programme - Database of marine sightings from marine life sightings programme, 2004 to 2009 CITES (2009) Appendix I and II listings ANRD (2009) Marine monitoring programme – survey results of seabird colony monitoring, 2006 to 2009 Royal Botanic Gardens Kew (1993) Report on sustainable environment and development strategy and action plan for St Helena; Executive Summary, and Vols 1 & 2. Klaer. N.l., Black a. & Howgate. E. (2008) Preliminary estimates of total seabird bycatch by ICCAT fisheries in recent years. ICCAT SCRS 2008 031 SEAFO (2007) Conservation Measure 05/06 on Reducing Incidental By-catch Of Seabirds In The SEAFO Convention Area
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 109 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.3.3 Information / Information is adequate to Information is sufficient to Information is sufficient to monitoring broadly understand the determine whether the quantitatively estimate impact of the fishery on ETP fishery may be a threat to outcome status with a high Relevant information species. protection and recovery of degree of certainty. is collected to support the ETP species, and if so, to the management of measure trends and support a fishery impacts on ETP full strategy to manage species, including: impacts. - information for the Information is adequate to Sufficient data are available to Information is adequate to development of the support measures to allow fishery related mortality support a comprehensive management manage the impacts on ETP and the impact of fishing to be strategy to manage impacts, strategy; species quantitatively estimated for minimize mortality and injury information to ETP species. of ETP species, and evaluate - assess the with a high degree of effectiveness of the certainty whether a strategy is management achieving its objectives. strategy; and Information is sufficient to Accurate and verifiable - information to qualitatively estimate the information is available on the determine the fishery related mortality of magnitude of all impacts, outcome status of ETP species. mortalities and injuries and ETP species. the consequences for the
status of ETP species.
Score: 75
Justification Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts. The principal threat to ETP species from the fishery likely relates to interactions with bird species. St Helena Department of Agriculture undertakes surveys of ETP species and has a good understanding of species composition and distribution. Bird colonies are actively monitored, and data are used to determine trends in population. This monitoring would detect signs of fishery related problems – for example regurgitated hooks or lines around nesting sites, or dead birds. ICCAT undertake a review of bird bycatch in tuna fisheries, although this focuses more on long-line fisheries, which are known to be the main threat. A second possible type of interaction is that with various shark species. Whilst the scale of such interaction is likely to be minor, there is no specific information on this since such interactions are not routinely recorded and reported. Two species of hammerhead shark with which the St Helena fishery might possibly interact are now listed as endangered. There is no routine monitoring of (or logbook recording of) other ETP interactions, such as with dolphin or turtle species. It is thought that this is because such interactions do not occur, however this assertion could be more strongly made if data on sightings, or independent corroboration were available. ICCAT does undertake some routine monitoring and mapping of ETP species in the Atlantic, but this does not focus specifically on St Helena, or examine the interactions with this gear type. The St Helena Department of Agriculture does independently record sightings of marine ETP species. The available understanding and existing information is therefore only sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species and support measures to manage the impact of ETP species, however this falls short of enabling the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated. Condition 6 has been raised to address these issues focusing on the recording of ETP deaths. References SEAFO (2007) Conservation Measure 05/06 on Reducing Incidental By-catch Of Seabirds In The SEAFO Convention Area ANRD (2009) Marine monitoring programme - Database of marine sightings from marine life sightings programme, '04 to ‘09 CITES (2009) Appendix I and II listings ANRD (2009) Marine monitoring programme – survey results of seabird colony monitoring, 2006 to 2009
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 110 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Defra (2005) Format for reports of parties on implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (revision of June 2003)
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 111 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
2.4 Habitat
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.4.1 Status The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce habitat structure to reduce habitat structure fishery is highly unlikely to The fishery does not and function to a point and function to a point where reduce habitat structure and cause serious or where there would be there would be serious or function to a point where irreversible harm to serious or irreversible irreversible harm. there would be serious or habitat structure, harm. irreversible harm. considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function.
Score: 95
Justification The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. All tuna species, and the other retained species, are pelagic fish species meaning that they are most abundant in areas of open ocean, where they tend to aggregate in the surface and upper waters, typically well above the seabed. The gear used in this fishery does not make contact with the seabed in order to catch fish. In addition the gear is light and static, meaning even if there is incidental contact with the seabed it will not do any damage. When fishing with rod and line the boats are held in position with lightweight anchor, which is not reported as bringing up benthic organisms. Boats are not beached and remain on a mooring at all times. In addition there are moorings at the main points for baitfish capture, reducing repeated impacts from anchoring. Gear loss is also minimal, and unlikely to cause any persistent problem – such as ghost fishing. Evidence can be drawn from other pelagic line fisheries to indicate that this gear type cannot cause serious or irreversible harm to habitats. This means that in practice the 100 guidepost is almost met, albeit that it would be preferable to have more locally specific information on which to base this. References Royal Botanic Gardens Kew (1993) Report on sustainable environment and development strategy and action plan for St Helena; Executive Summary, and Vols 1 & 2. Rogers A D (2004) The biology, ecology and vulnerability of seamount communities; IUCN
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 112 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.4.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of the There is a strategy in expected to achieve the expected to achieve the fishery on habitat types. place that is designed Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of to ensure the fishery performance. performance or above. does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible The measures are There is some objective basis The strategy is mainly based harm to habitat types. considered likely to work, for confidence that the partial on information directly about based on plausible strategy will work, based on the fishery and/or habitats argument (e.g general some information directly involved, and testing supports experience, theory or about the fishery and/or high confidence that the comparison with similar habitats involved. strategy will work. fisheries/habitats). There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the partial strategy is being the strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.
Score: 95
Justification There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. Although it appears likely that no management strategy is necessary – given not only the characteristics of the fishery, but also the small scale of the fleet and the area fished by that fleet – there is little evidence that this subject has been explicitly considered by management. However the fact that the fishery uses rod and line from static vessels (no dragging involved), that fish are targeted in the water column (as opposed to around the seabed) and that permanent moorings are available, including at the baitfishing site (limiting further benthic impact from anchoring) could be interpreted as a number of measures which combine to form a voluntary or customary arrangement, akin to a strategy, which is appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery. It is fleet practice that all material no longer used in fishing is returned to shore for disposal through the island’s waste management system (landfill) – including reinforcing iron used in anchors, fishing gear, fuel oil, and litter. References SHG (2008) Strategy for Action to Implement St Helena’s Commitments under its Environment Charter OTEP (2005) A monitoring scheme and awareness programme for seabirds and turtles on St Helena; report on the visit of Tara George, Ascension Island Government Conservation Officer, October 21st – November 9th 2004 McCulloch N. (2004) A guide to the birds of St Helena and Ascension Island. RSPB Convention on Migratory Species (2002) First Meeting of Signatory States to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning Conservation Measures for Marine Turtles of the Atlantic Coast of Africa; 6 - 9 May 2002, Nairobi, Kenya SHG (2001) St Helena Environment Charter
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 113 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.4.3 Information / There is a basic The nature, distribution and The distribution of habitat monitoring understanding of the types vulnerability of all main types is known over their and distribution of main habitat types in the fishery range, with particular Information is habitats in the area of the area are known at a level of attention to the occurrence of adequate to fishery. detail relevant to the scale vulnerable habitat types. determine the risk and intensity of the fishery. posed to habitat types by the fishery and the Information is adequate to Sufficient data are available to Changes in habitat effectiveness of the broadly understand the allow the nature of the distributions over time are strategy to manage main impacts of gear use impacts of the fishery on measured. impacts on habitat on the main habitats, habitat types to be identified types. including spatial extent of and there is reliable interaction. information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Sufficient data continue to be The physical impacts of the collected to detect any gear on the habitat types have increase in risk to habitat (e.g. been quantified fully. due to changes in the
outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).
Score: 85
Justification The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. Information is more than adequate for management of the habitat impacts of the fishery and relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. Fishing is spatially restricted with good understanding of main fishing locations. Although a detailed habitat map is not available, this is not thought to be necessary for the fishery in question and habitat information is constantly improving with the increase in diving activity. There is good understanding of pelagic habitat characteristics such as salinity, temperature, turbidity, eutrophication etc. There is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear, with fishing being confined to relatively few known fishing sites, and similarly baitfishing being restricted to a few sites. Sufficient data are available to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Taken in combination there is sufficient data to allow the nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have been quantified fully. Albeit, this has not been quantified specifically for the fishery in question, given the likely negligible potential impact and the scale of the fishery it is adequate to draw quantitative comparison to other fisheries, which clearly point to the fact that pelagic rod and line fisheries do not impact on the habitat structure and function. References Rogers A D (2004) The biology, ecology and vulnerability of seamount communities; IUCN Royal Botanic Gardens Kew (1993) Report on sustainable environment and development strategy and action plan for St Helena; Executive Summary, and Vols 1 & 2.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 114 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
2.5 Ecosystem
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.5.1 Status The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly unlikely There is evidence that the disrupt the key elements to disrupt the key elements fishery is highly unlikely to The fishery does not underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements cause serious or structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem irreversible harm to point where there would be point where there would be a structure and function to a the key elements of a serious or irreversible serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a ecosystem structure harm. serious or irreversible harm. and function.
Score: 80
Justification The small level of catches in this fishery, and the relative size of the local fishery means that wider ecosystem impacts of the fishery are likely to be trivial. Species are highly migratory, spending a short period of time in the vicinity of St Helena. During this time the intensity of the fishery is low and is therefore highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Seamounts are known to be vulnerable to overfishing as seamount-aggregating fisheries have higher intrinsic vulnerability than other groups of marine fishes due to their typically long lifespan, late maturity, slow growth and low natural mortality – suggesting that fishing on many seamount species at anything more than moderate fishing levels is likely to be unsustainable. References Morato Gomes T A F (2007) Ecology and fisheries of seamount ecosystems – PhD thesis – Univ. of British Colombia Morato T., Cheung W. W. L & Pitcher T. J (2004) Vulnerability of seamount fish to fishing: Fuzzy Analysis of Life History Attributes. In Morato T. & Pauly D. (Editors) 2004. Seamounts: Biodiversity and Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 12 (5): 78p Rogers A D (2004) The biology, ecology and vulnerability of seamount communities; IUCN
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 115 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.5.2 Management strategy There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that place, if necessary, that place, if necessary, that takes consists of a plan, containing There are measures in take into account potential into account available measures to address all main place to ensure the impacts of the fishery on information and is expected impacts of the fishery on the fishery does not pose a key elements of the to restrain impacts of the ecosystem, and at least some risk of serious or ecosystem. fishery on the ecosystem so as of these measures are in irreversible harm to to achieve the Ecosystem place. The plan and measures ecosystem structure Outcome 80 level of are based on well-understood and function. performance. functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. The measures are The partial strategy is This plan provides for considered likely to work, considered likely to work, development of a full strategy based on plausible based on plausible argument that restrains impacts on the argument (eg, general (eg, general experience, ecosystem to ensure the experience, theory or theory or comparison with fishery does not cause serious comparison with similar similar fisheries/ ecosystems). or irreversible harm. fisheries/ ecosystems). There is some evidence that The measures are considered the measures comprising the likely to work based on prior partial strategy are being experience, plausible implemented successfully. argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.
Score: 80
Justification There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. At ICCAT level management is undertaken on the basis of ecological risk analysis. Under the ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics there is a sub-committee on ecosystems whose brief includes investigation of the trophic interactions of ICCAT target species and explicitly incorporate ecosystem function into modelling and improved mechanisms for including ecosystem considerations into advice. A key part of the management strategy is management of the stock through the application of TACs to protect the tuna populations (top predators). Evidence of partially effective implementation also includes the observation of recovery of some stocks, indicating that the ecosystem is sufficiently robust to enable recovery for top predators. The partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (eg, general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems). There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. This combines with other scientific work looking more specifically at the ecosystem interactions associated with seamount ecology suggesting that the partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument and also serves as evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. Locally there appears to be limited knowledge of the ecosystem, however limited mapping of main trophic interactions has taken place. In addition, as explained above, the local ecosystem impacts are likely to be trivial, therefore local management strategy is not necessary, given the current scale of the fishery. There is natural restraint on the scale of the fishery given the seasonality, bait requirements, low intensity of the fishery (both fleet size / gear constraints). References Tremayne J. (1998) Marine and Coastal Resources Management Plan. Directorate of Fisheries, Agriculture and Natural
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 116 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Resources Department, Government of St. Helena. Hoogesteger J (1989) The potential for offshore fisheries in the St Helena exclusive fishing zone – final report on an ODA Resource Assessment Survey 1985-1988; edited by T.J.Pitcher & C.E. Hollingworth Scullion J (1990) Review of the fish resources, fisheries and oceanography within the exclusive fishing zone of Ascension Island – 77+85pp Fulton, E., Morato, T. and Pitcher, T.J. (2007) Modelling Seamount Ecosystems and Their Fisheries. Chapter 15. Pp 296-332 in Pitcher, T.J., Morato, T., Hart, P.J.B., Clark, M.R., Haggan, N. and Santos, R.S. (eds) Seamounts: Ecology, Conservation and Management. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series, Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Terms of Reference for the ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, Sub Committee on ecosystems: http://www.iccat.int/Documents/SCRS/TofR%20SC_ECO_ENG.pdf
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 117 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 2.5.3 Information / Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to monitoring identify the key elements of broadly understand the broadly understand the key the ecosystem (e.g. trophic functions of the key elements elements of the ecosystem. There is adequate structure and function, of the ecosystem. knowledge of the community composition, impacts of the fishery productivity pattern and on the ecosystem. biodiversity). Main impacts of the fishery Main impacts of the fishery on Main interactions between on these key ecosystem these key ecosystem elements the fishery and these elements can be inferred can be inferred from existing ecosystem elements can be from existing information, information, but may not inferred from existing but have not been have been investigated in information, and have been investigated in detail. detail. investigated. The main functions of the The impacts of the fishery on Components (i.e. target, target, Bycatch, Retained and Bycatch, Retained and ETP ETP species and Habitats are species and Habitats) in the identified and the main ecosystem are known. functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the fishery on these the fishery on the Components to allow some of Components and elements to the main consequences for allow the main consequences the ecosystem to be inferred. for the ecosystem to be inferred. Sufficient data continue to be Information is sufficient to collected to detect any support the development of increase in risk level (e.g. due strategies to manage to changes in the outcome ecosystem impacts. indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).
Score: 80
Justification Information is adequate to broadly understand the functions of the key elements of the ecosystem. Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but may not have been investigated in detail. The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). A lot of research has been undertaken to gain a good, broad-scale understanding of how the ecosystem works, however this is not necessarily combined into an accessible enough form to reliably inform the fisheries management process. This is, however, being addressed by the work of the ICCAT SCRS sub-committee on ecosystems, which specifically seeks to make ecosystem information more accessible to fisheries management. A great deal is known in a wider ecosystem context about the position of the target species in the ecosystem. Although there is less evidence of routine monitoring of ecosystem interactions, other information should also be available relating to ecosystem wellbeing - for example, growth rates and diet of the various species should be available and will contain elements related to ecosystem health that can be monitored for trends over time.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 118 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Nonetheless, the existing level of information on tuna species and their role in the ecosystem is adequate to broadly understand the functions of the key elements of the ecosystem enabling main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements to be inferred from existing information, but these may not have been investigated in detail. In the local context, the main impacts of the St Helena fishery on important components of the ecosystem are known and, to some extent, continue to be monitored – retained species, several ETP species, habitats. Certainly, this is sufficient to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. References Tremayne J. (1998) Marine and Coastal Resources Management Plan. Directorate of Fisheries, Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, Government of St. Helena. Hoogesteger J (1989) The potential for offshore fisheries in the St Helena exclusive fishing zone – final report on an ODA Resource Assessment Survey 1985-1988; edited by T.J.Pitcher & C.E. Hollingworth Scullion J (1990) Review of the fish resources, fisheries and oceanography within the exclusive fishing zone of Ascension Island – 77+85pp Fulton, E., Morato, T. and Pitcher, T.J. (2007) Modelling Seamount Ecosystems and Their Fisheries. Chapter 15. Pp 296-332 in Pitcher, T.J., Morato, T., Hart, P.J.B., Clark, M.R., Haggan, N. and Santos, R.S. (eds) Seamounts: Ecology, Conservation and Management. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series, Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Terms of Reference for the ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, Sub Committee on ecosystems: http://www.iccat.int/Documents/SCRS/TofR%20SC_ECO_ENG.pdf
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 119 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable
3.1 Governance and Policy
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 3.1.1 Legal and/or The management system is The management system is The management system is customary framework generally consistent with generally consistent with generally consistent with local, national or local, national or international local, national or international The management international laws or laws or standards that are laws or standards that are system exists within an standards that are aimed at aimed at achieving aimed at achieving appropriate and achieving sustainable sustainable fisheries in sustainable fisheries in effective legal and/or fisheries in accordance with accordance with MSC accordance with MSC customary framework MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. which ensures that it: The management system The management system The management system - Is capable of incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by delivering by law to a mechanism for law to a transparent law to a transparent sustainable fisheries the resolution of legal mechanism for the resolution mechanism for the resolution in accordance with disputes arising within the of legal disputes which is of legal disputes that is MSC Principles 1 and system. considered to be effective in appropriate to the context of 2; dealing with most issues and the fishery and has been
- Observes the legal that is appropriate to the tested and proven to be rights created context of the fishery. effective. explicitly or Although the management The management system or The management system or established by authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to custom of people subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or rapidly dependent on challenges, it is not with binding judicial decisions implements binding judicial fishing for food or indicating a disrespect or arising from any legal decisions arising from legal livelihood; and defiance of the law by challenges. challenges. - Incorporates an repeatedly violating the appropriate dispute same law or regulation resolution necessary for the framework. sustainability for the fishery.
The management system The management system has The management system has
has a mechanism to a mechanism to observe the a mechanism to formally generally respect the legal legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights rights created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom on people dependent on for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing fishing for food or manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a livelihood in a manner objectives of MSC Principles 1 manner consistent with the consistent with the and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 objectives of MSC Principles and 2. 1 and 2.
Score: 75 The island has the functioning mechanisms to manage its local fisheries, but is less able to manage those fisheries undertaken in its offshore waters (12nm out to 200nm). In terms of managing Atlantic tuna stocks, this responsibility rests primarily with ICCAT, one of the first RFMOs to be established and, as such, with a constitution that needs to be urgently updated and revised. In this regard the island is less in control of the management of its tuna resources than subject to the weight of numbers of other countries with rather (numerically) greater economic interest in tuna exploitation. Justification The management system is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 120 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system is generally consistent with all local, national and international laws and regulations. The St Helena Government has its own legislature and statutes covering fisheries structures, fisheries management, and natural resource conservation. St Helena is an Overseas Territory of the UK, and as such is signed up to a wide range of international agreements through the UK. St Helena, through the UK, is a member of ICCAT, and in its own right is a member of one or more ICCAT Working Groups. St Helena is also a signatory of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea of the 10th of December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks extended the 3rd of December 1999. But the application of this management system, most notably through ICCAT and as applied by its Contracting Parties, has continuing weaknesses that undermine its effectiveness. (Score 70) The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery.
UK Overseas Territories have recourse to the UK justice system for high level dispute resolution. Local management is vested in the Fisheries Section of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Department of the St Helena Government. This is a small section (two full-time officers), but is consistent with the scale of the island and its fishery interests, and the resources at its disposal for management of the activities of the locally based fleet. St Helena does enter into fishing agreements with third parties, licensing certain vessels to fish within the 200 mile EEZ of St Helena (Ascension and Tristan da Cunha). A requirement of such licensing is that vessels indicate when they are entering and leaving the EEZ, that their position at any time is visible on a standard Satellite Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), and that they submit details of their catches and landings. The Fisheries Section, with support from the FCO, London, remotely monitors other-fishing activity within its 200 miles EEZ through satellite tracking, but any exercise of control outside the immediate waters around the island needs to be on an administrative basis only, unless mediated by control resources from metropolitan countries (notably the UK), though such resources have not been called upon to date. Reception and management of fish landings, and support to the fleet, is managed by the St Helena Fisheries Corporation, based in Rupert’s Bay, and exercised through its agent, Argos Atlantic Cold Stores, Rupert’s Bay. Fishermen’s interests are represented through the St Helena Fishermen’s Association, Jamestown. Consultation and dispute resolution is achieved through regular meetings of fishery interests – incorporating the Fisheries Section of the ARND, the St Helena Fisheries Corporation, the Argos Cold Store, the Fishermen’s Association, the St Helena National Trust, the St Helena Development Agency, and representatives of the Department of Public Health (Environment), Economic Planning, and the coastguard (Police). Legal procedures are addressed through the St Helena police and justice department. At the level of the UK, the interests of St Helena are represented through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with fishery management expertise provided through Defra and through DIFD. In relation to issues specific to management and exploitation of tuna, the relevant Regional Fisheries Management Organisation is ICCAT, with its secretariat based in Madrid, Spain. ICCAT has 36 contracting parties; the UK is represented through the European Union, but the UK Overseas Territories are represented in their own right. ICCAT has no formal or explicit dispute resolution procedure (but it is capable of exercising sanction – for example, where sanctions were levied against St Vincent & Grenadines). Whilst there are explicit and transparent decision-making and dispute resolution mechanisms defined and in place, there is concern about their effectiveness in practice, and the level of resources allocated to making them effective. (Score 75) The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. There are no pending legal decisions affecting the fisheries associated with St Helena. The main issues that might affect St Helena fisheries relate to rules on highly migratory species, and these are dealt with through the FCO in respect of ICCAT, UN, etc. In terms of holding the fisheries to compliance, there is pressure through the UK Government , for example in the areas of conservation, to uphold international agreements, exercised through the island’s signature of a specific Environmental Charter. In addition there is a vocal NGO community associated with the island, notably through the St Helena National Trust, and - off- island - the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF). St Helena does operate pro-actively in relation to its international obligations, and the institutions of sector management from the islands operate smoothly and effectively. (Score 80)
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 121 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The management system has a mechanism to observe the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. St Helena fishermen have rights expressed in law (The Fishery Limits (Licensing of Fishing) Order, 1978). There is no evidence that anyone who wanted a license, and complies with the appropriate eligibility criteria, has been denied a license. (Score 80) Condition 1 has been raised to address issues arising References SHG (2009) Overview of St Helena fishing industry – Dept of Agriculture and Natural Resources - UNCLOS (1999) signatory to the migratory stocks agreement – 1999 SHG. (1979) Legislation: Fishery Limits (Licensing of Fishing) Order SHG. (1999) Legislation: Fish and Fish Products Marketing Regulations. SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 75 - Endangered Species Protection Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 97 - Birds Protection Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 47 - Harbours Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation (Including Harbour Regulations - Section 28, Feb 1998). SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 88 - Fishery Limits Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation. SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 89 - Fish and Fish Products Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation. SHG. (2001) Legislation: The High Seas Fishing Ordinance SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 90 - The St Helena Fisheries Corporation Ordinance SHG. (2003) Legislation: The Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources Ordinance http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4403
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 122 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 3.1.2 Consultation, roles Organisations and Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals and responsibilities individuals involved in the involved in the management involved in the management management process have process have been identified. process have been identified. The management been identified. Functions, Functions, roles and Functions, roles and system has effective roles and responsibilities responsibilities are explicitly responsibilities are explicitly consultation processes are generally understood. defined and well understood defined and well understood that are open to for key areas of responsibility for all areas of responsibility interested and and interaction. and interaction. affected parties. The management system The management system The management system The roles and includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation responsibilities of processes that obtain processes that regularly seek processes that regularly seek organisations and relevant information from and accept relevant and accept relevant individuals who are the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local involved in the including local knowledge, knowledge. The management knowledge. The management management process to inform the management system demonstrates system demonstrates are clear and system. consideration of the consideration of the understood by all information obtained. information and explains how relevant parties. it is used or not used.
The consultation process The consultation process provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and
facilitates their effective engagement.
Score: 80 Consultation at the local level is well developed, but lacks formality; consultation at the international level is formalised, and there are well-developed mechanisms for the seeking and consideration of appropriate information. Justification Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. The roles and functions of the various parties associated with the St Helena fishery industry are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas:
- The roles, functions and responsibilities of the fisheries section are explicitly defined in law, and include the provision of fisheries data, the provision of fisheries technical advice, the administration of fishing licence applications, and the provision of marine monitoring, information and advice.
- The roles and functions of the St Helena Fisheries Corporation are also laid down in law. - The St Helena Fishermen’s Association (representing all commercial fishermen) has its own constitution. - The relationship between Argos Atlantic Cold Stores and the St Helena Fisheries Corporation is addressed in the form of a contract. St Helena has very limited capacity to undertake or contribute to scientific research, but these functions are largely undertaken by the UK Government – through its national fisheries laboratories, through DIFD and through contractors. This contributes to the research undertaken by other ICCAT contracting parties. There are well established administrative functions, roles and responsibilities within the St Helena Government exercised through ExCo, LegCo, the senior civil service, and through the police and marine division. Marine conservation obligations are upheld by the JNCC, in collaboration with the NGOs the St Helena National Trust and the Overseas Territories Conservation Forum. Representation at an international level is managed and coordinated by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). (Score 80) The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 123 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
ICCAT holds a plenary meeting every two years, and specialist working groups of ICCAT (comprising scientists from the contracting parties) convene technical meetings on an annual basis. Information derived from the contracting parties and the inputs from the specialist working groups is considered and such consideration forms the basis of the management advice provided by ICCAT. At the level of the UK and St Helena, the fishery officers of the Overseas Territories convene regularly to discuss issues relating to fisheries management and marine conservation. At a local level there are regular meetings of all those involved in the fishery industry – including the Senior Fishery Officer, the St Helena Fisheries Corporation, the Fishermen’s Association, and others. This type of meeting is convened on a regular basis, but there is no formal code to its structure, function or role. Nonetheless, information presented to and arising from this meeting is taken into consideration when developing and implementing policy, goals and plans. (Score 80) The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. At international, national and island levels, the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. (Score 85) References SHG (2009) Overview of St Helena fishing industry – Dept of Agriculture and Natural Resources - Chris Ninnes (1996) Report on a Visit to Provide Marine and Coastal Assessment and Management Inputs to the Government of St Helena; MRAG on behalf of DFID Edwards A. (1990) Fish and fisheries of St. Helena Island; Centre for Tropical Coastal Management Studies, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKSHG. (1979) Legislation: Fishery Limits (Licensing of Fishing) Order SHG. (1999) Legislation: Fish and Fish Products Marketing Regulations. SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 47 - Harbours Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation (Including Harbour Regulations - Section 28, Feb 1998). SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 88 - Fishery Limits Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation. SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 89 - Fish and Fish Products Ordinance & Subsidiary Legislation. SHG. (2001) Legislation: The High Seas Fishing Ordinance SHG. (2001) Legislation: Chapter 90 - The St Helena Fisheries Corporation Ordinance SHG. (2003) Legislation: The Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources Ordinance http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4403
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 124 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 3.1.3 Long term objectives Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, The management consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles consistent with MSC Principles policy has clear long- Principles and Criteria and and Criteria and the and Criteria and the term objectives to the precautionary precautionary approach, are precautionary approach, are guide decision-making approach, are implicit explicit within management explicit within and required by that are consistent within management policy. policy. management policy. with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach.
Score: 80 Compliance with this PI at level of ICCAT, but less explicit within St Helena policy and legislation. Justification Clear, long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within management policy. The long-term objectives for each of these stocks are clearly stated by ICCAT which, with the support of its membership, provides the science-based guidance for management of these stocks, and provides the mechanism by which overall and country fishing quotas are allocated. Long-term management of the St Helena fishery is stated in general by the UK FCO and the Government of St Helena in its policy guidance, but is not explicit in the context of application of the precautionary approach (though this is explicit in the ICCAT objectives). St Helena is represented on the ICCAT board (along with all other Overseas Territories) by the FCO. Operation within the quota limits established for St Helena is upheld by local statistics collection and monitoring. References SHG (2003) Conservation and management of fisheries resources ordinance. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4403 Hecht, T (2007) The Ascension Island Fisheries with Recommendations for Management; Enviro-Fish Africa (Pty) Ltd - 85pp Atkins. (2005) St Helena Access Feasibility Study, Environment Analysis, Final Report. Ninnes C (1996) Report on a visit to provide marine and coastal assessment and management inputs to the Government of St Helena 20 September to 13 November 1996; MRAG – 77pp Tremayne J. (1998) Marine and Coastal Resources Management Plan. Directorate of Fisheries, Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, Government of St. Helena.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 125 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 3.1.4 Incentives for The management system The management system The management system sustainable fishing provides for incentives that provides for incentives that provides for incentives that are consistent with are consistent with achieving are consistent with achieving The management achieving the outcomes the outcomes expressed by the outcomes expressed by system provides expressed by MSC MSC Principles 1 and 2, and MSC Principles 1 and 2, and economic and social Principles 1 and 2. seeks to ensure that negative explicitly considers incentives incentives for incentives do not arise. in a regular review of sustainable fishing and management policy or does not operate with procedures to ensure that subsidies that they do not contribute to contribute to unsustainable fishing unsustainable fishing. practices.
Score: 80 There are clear incentives in support of sustainable fishing, and subsidies necessitated by the unique circumstances of the island do not encourage unsustainable fishing. Justification The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that negative incentives do not arise.
St Helena is a small and isolated island supporting a very small population and economy≃ ( 4,000). W hilst the island economy is inherently a subsidised economy (with significant capital and budgetary support from the UK treasury) its policies and practices in the context of fishery management seek to provide incentive to compliance with outcomes consistent with MSC P1 and P2. Of some relevance, the St Helena Sustainable Development Plan presents overall statements of policy:
• point 8 – protect and conserve the environment; • point 3 – develop a sustainable and vibrant economy; • point 5 – promote and develop a sustainable workforce - www.sthelena.gov.sh In this context incentive is provided in the fish purchasing pricing system operated by the Government and the St Helena Fisheries Corporation (SHFC) in combination with quota restrictions. These provide strong incentive to achievement of policy outcomes (there is nowhere else to land fish, all fish landed by the commercial fleet needs to be supplied to the SHFC, plus the catch and landings monitoring system is tight). There are elements of subsidy to the fishery economy as there is a need to allow provision of modern boats for considerations of both safety and sustainability (there was an element of grant to the provision of the fleet of four Sandskipper catamarans to the island). Further, there are elements of subsidy in terms of fuel pricing and transport costs. This said, none of these subsidies compromise achievement of the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 & 2. References SHG (2007) St Helena Sustainable Development Plan 2007/08 – 2009/10; 83pp Steele, R J G (1999) Renewable Natural Resources Strategy 1999-2004; Agric. and Nat. Res. Dept. 22pp SHG (1999) The St Helena Strategic Review 2000-2010; 74pp DFID (2009) Consultation on whether an airport is the most appropriate option for access to St Helena in the current economic climate; 34pp Ti-Up Resource Centre (2007) St Helena Access Project Infrastructure Review
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 126 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.2 Fishery- specific management system
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 3.2.1 Fishery- specific Objectives, which are broadly Short and long term Well defined and measurable objectives consistent with achieving the objectives, which are short and long term outcomes expressed by consistent with achieving the objectives, which are The fishery has clear, MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent specific objectives implicit within the fishery’s MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are with achieving the outcomes designed to achieve management system. explicit within the fishery’s expressed by MSC’s the outcomes management system. Principles 1 and 2, are expressed by MSC’s explicit within the fishery’s Principles 1 and 2. management system.
Score: 80 The explicit and implicit statements of management objectives are considered appropriate to the scale and conditions applying in the St Helena fishery. Justification Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system. Specific fishery objectives are in the form of the annual TAC and quota allocations for bigeye, yellowfin and albacore, but not skipjack. These are issued by ICCAT and agreed by its membership. These are applied and monitored through the Government of St Helena and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). TAC is set to take stock to above BMSY. No TAC or quota is set for skipjack because the stock is considered to be under-exploited (this is not considered best practice, and is addressed under P1). St Helena, through the UK FCO, is signatory to a range of conservation commitments, some of which are interpreted in St Helena legislation. These are upheld through the offices of the Fisheries Department of the St Helena Government and the various management committees associated with fisheries and conservation. St Helena policy statements and legislation fall short of a full statement of objectives – for example specific reference to the precautionary principle – but are implicit. The FCO, with overall responsibility for the Overseas Territories, is more explicit on the subject. The explicit and implicit statements of management objectives are considered appropriate to the scale and conditions applying in the St Helena fishery. Recommendation 5 has been raised to encourage the development of policy documents / statements that clearly describe UK and island fishery policy. References SHG (2009) Overview of St Helena fishing industry – Dept of Agriculture and Natural Resources - Hecht, T (2007) The Ascension Island Fisheries with Recommendations for Management; Enviro-Fish Africa (Pty) Ltd - 85pp SHG (2007) St Helena Sustainable Development Plan 2007/08 – 2009/10; 83pp
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 127 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 3.2.2 Decision-making There are informal There are established There are established processes decision-making processes decision-making processes decision-making processes that result in measures and that result in measures and that result in measures and The fishery-specific strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the management system fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. includes effective decision-making Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes processes that result in respond to serious issues respond to serious and other respond to all issues identified measures and identified in relevant important issues identified in in relevant research, strategies to achieve research, monitoring, relevant research, monitoring, monitoring, evaluation and the objectives. evaluation and evaluation and consultation, consultation, in a transparent, consultation, in a in a transparent, timely and timely and adaptive manner
transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take and take account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. some account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Decision-making processes Decision-making processes use the precautionary use the precautionary approach and are based on approach and are based on best available information. best available information. Explanations are provided for Formal reporting to all any actions or lack of action interested stakeholders associated with findings and describes how the relevant recommendations management system emerging from research, responded to findings and monitoring, evaluation and relevant recommendations review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.
Score: 75 Decision-making processes are in place which are established, responsive and largely transparent – the more so at the local level, the less so at the ICCAT level. Use of the precautionary approach is implicit rather than explicit but local management is considered appropriate to the scale and nature of the fisheries. Justification There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. This PI focuses on the mechanisms and decision-making results used in ICCAT. There has been a review of the performance of ICCAT (the first such review of ICCAT systems), which has highlighted weaknesses, focusing on the need to bring some of the foundation protocols of the RFMO in line with other comparable RFMOs, the lack of political commitment from its membership in implementing advice, and the failure of members to provide data in an appropriate and timely manner. This said, there are established decision-making processes – at the levels of ICCAT, FCO and the St Helena Government / fishery sector that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. (score 80) Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. As indicated above, decision-making processes are in place, and they do respond to the other important issues, but are hampered in their effectiveness. There is no provision in the basic ICCAT text for the ecosystem approach, and the provision for dispute resolution is weak. There is also a lack of transparency in the decision-making mechanisms. These issues are all referred to in the Executive Summary of the ICCAT review report. At the local level, decision-making systems are in place, responsive and transparent. This said, there are weaknesses evident in a number of areas – in data collection, collation and forwarding, strategy development with respect to discards and ETP species interactions – which are identified and addressed under other PIs. Controls, where necessary, are exercised through the pricing system, and weekly quota limits. Nonetheless, taken together there is need for the existing systems to embrace review of the adequacy of current systems in assessing and responding to circumstances and change. (score 75) Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 128 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Decision-making processes do use the precautionary approach, but this is implicit rather than explicit at the levels of ICCAT, the UK FCO and St Helena. This management approach is predicated by the circumstances associated with the St Helena fisheries – these fisheries are essentially opportunist (fish visit rather than reside in the inshore waters of St Helena); the capacity of the St Helena fishing fleet is severely limited by scale, investment and geographical isolation. (score 80) Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Explanations are provided through the comprehensive publications of ICCAT – scientific, procedural and the provision of management advice. (score 80) Condition 1 has been raised to address issues arising. References SHG (2009) Overview of St Helena fishing industry – Dept of Agriculture and Natural Resources Hecht, T (2007) The Ascension Island Fisheries with Recommendations for Management; Enviro-Fish Africa (Pty) Ltd - 85pp SHG (2007) St Helena Sustainable Development Plan 2007/08 – 2009/10; 83pp
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 129 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 3.2.3 Compliance and Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive monitoring, enforcement surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has been control and surveillance exist, are implemented in implemented in the fishery system has been Monitoring, control the fishery under under assessment and has implemented in the fishery and surveillance assessment and there is a demonstrated an ability to under assessment and has mechanisms ensure reasonable expectation enforce relevant management demonstrated a consistent the fishery’s that they are effective. measures, strategies and/or ability to enforce relevant management rules. management measures, measures are enforced strategies and/or rules. and complied with. Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- compliance exist and there compliance exist, are compliance exist, are is some evidence that they consistently applied and consistently applied and are applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for with the management system comply with the management the fishery under under assessment, including, system under assessment, assessment, including, when required, providing including, providing when required, providing information of importance to information of importance to information of importance the effective management of the effective management of to the effective the fishery. the fishery. management of the fishery.
There is no evidence of There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. systematic non-compliance.
Score: 85 There is no evidence of non-compliance, the risks to effective and precautionary management are low and control systems appropriate to the scale and nature of the fishery. Justification A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. The St Helena tuna fisheries are exclusively a day fishery with boats putting to sea early in the morning and returning to moorings mid-afternoon. They are logged out and in by the St Helena Fisheries Corporation (SHFC) and Argos Cold Stores which are responsible for weighing and recording all landings. These data are submitted to the St Helena Fishery Department. Consolidated landings data are submitted annually to ICCAT [there is some concern about timely reporting of catches to ICCAT (missing data for 2003 and 2004), but otherwise St Helena collects relevant information]. There is nowhere else to land fish, and there is no leakage in the system. (score 85) Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. Annual landings quotas are taken from ICCAT and the UK FCO and applied by the St Helena Fisheries Department. Enforcement is exercised through the SHFC with the support of the St Helena Fishermen’s Association. As the sole purchaser of the product of the commercial fleet, by law, the SHFC can apply the sanction of not buying the product of a boat found to be in contravention of the management system. It has not been necessary to apply sanctions with respect to quota violations because there have been no quota violations. It is occasionally necessary to restrict landings on a daily and weekly basis because of limitations in the only on-island freezing capacity at Argos Cold Stores, and this is achieved effectively through the SHFC with the support of the St Helena Fishermen’s Association and Argos Cold Stores. (score 85) Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. Fishermen participate actively in the management of this fishery – both in their day-to-day interactions with the SHFC and Argos Cold Stores, and through active representation through the St Helena Fishermen’s Association and through appropriate decision-making committees. (score 80)
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 130 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. There is no evidence of non-compliance, and the risks to effective and precautionary management are low and control systems are appropriate to the scale and nature of the fishery. (score 85) References SHFC (2009) Purchase records, April 08 to March 09 SHFC (2009) Per vessel catch per unit effort calculations for period April 08 to March 09 SHG (2009) Overview of St Helena fishing industry – Dept of Agriculture and Natural Resources - Hecht, T (2007) The Ascension Island Fisheries with Recommendations for Management; Enviro-Fish Africa (Pty) Ltd - 85pp
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 131 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 3.2.4 Research plan Research is undertaken, as A research plan provides the A comprehensive research required, to achieve the management system with a plan provides the The fishery has a objectives consistent with strategic approach to research management system with a research plan that MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. and reliable and timely coherent and strategic addresses the information sufficient to approach to research across information needs of achieve the objectives P1, P2 and P3, and reliable management. consistent with MSC’s and timely information Principles 1 and 2. sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are available to interested disseminated to all interested disseminated to all interested parties. parties in a timely fashion. parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available.
Score: 85 Research programmes are in place sufficient to provide reliable and timely information for management purposes, but there are some weaknesses in the coherence of research planning. Justification A research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Island level research would be inappropriate in respect of St Helena. Most research activities on Atlantic tuna and tuna-like species are carried out by scientists from national research institutes or universities of Contracting Parties. Special Research Programs are used by ICCAT as a mechanism to help focus, coordinate and complement those national research activities. The programs usually centre on improving biological knowledge and fishery data for a particular species, and usually last a few years. In some cases they are funded by the Commission as part of the regular budget and in some cases they are funded by contributions from individual Contracting Parties and other agencies. But the small scale nature of the fishery may lend itself to participation in tagging programmes – most notably for shark and billfish species that may be caught and released in this fishery. This could initially be followed up through ICCAT Working Groups or the scientific staff of the ICCAT Secretariat. (score 80) Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion. There are a wide range of ICCAT sub-committees dealing with various aspects of research – stock assessment working groups, tagging, life cycle, etc. The results of research undertaken by national institutions and reported to ICCAT are disseminated through the ICCAT publications, and through peer-reviewed journals. There is some criticism that despite there being plenty of research and papers output, there is less credibility that the research is coherent and strategic in its general approach and in its approach to solving problems – i.e. less explanation as to why researchers are doing what they are doing. There is also no specific reference within ICCAT documentation as to how the research programmes respond to requirements. There is no capacity on St Helena to undertake more than very basic research (logging of size, weight and sex of catches). (score 85) References SHG (2008) Strategy for Action to Implement St Helena’s Commitments under its Environment Charter SHG (2007) St Helena Sustainable Development Plan 2007/08 – 2009/10; 83pp SHG (2009) Overview of St Helena fishing industry – Dept of Agriculture and Natural Resources
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 132 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Criteria 60 Guideposts 80 Guideposts 100 Guideposts 3.2.5 Monitoring and The fishery has in place The fishery has in place The fishery has in place management mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate key mechanisms to evaluate all performance some parts of the parts of the management parts of the management evaluation management system and is system and is subject to system and is subject to subject to occasional regular internal and regular internal and external There is a system for internal review. occasional external review. review. monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.
Score: 85 The tuna management systems (under ICCAT) are regularly subjected to internal review, and there has recently been a significant independent external review. Justification The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. For the first time since its establishment in 1966 as the first RFMO, ICCAT has recently (2008) commissioned its first ever independent review of its structure, systems and activities. This has identified weaknesses, and provided indication as to how these might be redressed. There are a wide range of Working Groups within ICCAT that undertake regular review of all activities – advice, science, stock management, etc. St Helena currently has no system for monitoring or evaluating its management plan. This should be put in place. Condition 1 has been expanded to incorporate review of the adequacy of the management plan and systems employed on St Helena. References ICCAT (2007) Basic Texts. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. 5th Revision. Madrid, Spain. ICCAT (2009) Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT. Restrepo V.R. (2009) Red, Green and Yellow: Thoughts on Stock Status and the ICCAT Convention Objectives. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 64(7): 2663-2673. SCRS/2008/172.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 133 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 4 – RBF SICA and PSA tables
SI CA 1 – Scoping document – hazard identification scoring sheet
SICA 1 – Summary of hazards analysis
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 134 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
SICA 1 – Retained species
Rationale
Spatial – large pelagics found throughout Atlantic tropical waters – although typically where small and medium sized pelagic feed fish are found. St Helena fishery constitutes only a tiny proportion of the area where these fish are found Temporal – fishing for the four tunas takes place across most of the year, with relatively poor fishing opportunities between November and February. The fleet of twelve small boats fishes all year round, focusing on demersal species (and small volume catches of bigeye) during the low season. Each uses an average of two lines at any one time, so fishing activity covers maybe 30 lines for each of 240 days per year. Intensity – as for the tuna fisheries the catching of other large pelagics is largely opportunist in nature, since the fleet is restricted in where and when it can fish by weather and safety considerations. For practical purposes it is limited to fishing within between 5 and 10 miles off the island. There is no evidence that any of these species use St Helena waters for spawning or as nursery grounds. There is no evidence that any of these species of large pelagic are in permanent residence around the St Helena seamount. There no evidence that the capture of these other large pelagics as bycatch occurs on a scale other than proportional to the capture of tuna. At any given time the fleet is fishing a maximum of perhaps thirty one-hook lines – and so both the intensity of fishing effort and the scale of catches is very low, and insignificant in relation to the overall scale of fishing on the stock as a whole. Mackerel and Decapterus spp. are found in the upper areas of the water column wherever there is sufficient zooplankton to support them (i.e. in principle, ocean-wide), though they will congregate over the continental shelf to breed. Since levels of zooplankton are generally higher in association with shallow water, at certain times of the year these species will be found in greater concentrations in association with shallow water landmasses, such as St Helena. Nonetheless, these species are found throughout the tropical Atlantic, and the St Helena resource and its small-scale harvesting is negligible in this context. These species are fished as bait in small quantities – either by using a baited (typically bread) dip net, or by baited hook. The fishing gear is highly size and species selective, meaning that all fish caught are commercial species above MLS. As a result there are no discarded species, with 100% of fish caught being retained.
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 135 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
SICA 1 – Other impacts
Discards No Discards in Tuna fishery - 100% landed No habitat threats identified in St Helena tuna fishery - conventional MSC scoring Habitat sufficient Ecosystem No ecosystem threats identified in St Helena tuna fishery - conventional MSC scoring sufficient
Below is therefore an example of blank SICA table used during scoping
Direct impact Fishing activity 6)
- of fishing
6) -
6) -
component - 6) 2) - - presence (1) presence (1) (0) absence spatial scale of hazard (1 scale temporal of hazard (1 sub analysis of unit operational objective intensity score (1 consequence score (1 score confidence (1 rationale capture bait collection fishing incidental behaviour direct impact bait collection without incidental behaviour capture gear loss anchoring / mooring addition / translocation of species movement of on board processing biological discarding catch material stock enhancement provisioning organic waste disposal addition of debris non-biological chemical pollution material exhaust gear loss navigation / steaming activity / presence on water disturb bait collection physical fishing processes boat launching anchoring / mooring navigation / steaming external other fisheries hazards aquaculture (specify the coastal development particular example other extractive activities within each activity area) other non-extractive
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 136 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
PSA assessment
Productivity Scores [1 3] Susceptibility Scores [1 3] PSA scores (automatic)
ge
Color on PSA plot Fecundity Selectivity Availability capture mortality
- Risk MSC Encounterability Average max a Average max size PSA Category scoring Total (multiplicative) Reproductive strategy Post Trophic level (fishbase) Average age at maturity TAXA_NAME FAMILY_NAME SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME Average at size Maturity Score Name guidepost Total Productivity (average) Baitfish (retained PI 2.1.1)
Perciformes Carangidae Decapterus macarellus Kingston 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 2 2 2 3 1.58 2.03 Low >80
Perciformes Carangidae Decapterus muroadsi Stonebrass 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 2 2 2 3 1.58 2.03 Low >80 Perciformes Carangidae Decapterus punctatus Summer stonebrass (Round 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 2 2 2 3 1.58 2.03 Low >80 Scad)
Retained Species (PI 2.1.1)
Perciformes Scombridae Acanthocybium solandri Wahoo (retained) 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 2 3 1.43 2.23 Low >80
Perciformes Coryphaenidae Coryphaena hippurus Dorado (retained) 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 2 3 1.43 2.12 Low >80
Perciformes Carangidae Pseudocaranx dentex Trevally (retained) 2 3 1 2 2 1 3 2.00 1 3 2 3 1.43 2.46 Low >80
Perciformes Istiophoridae Makaira nigricans Blue Marlin (retained)* 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 2 3 1.43 2.23 Low >80
Perciformes Istiophoridae Makaira indica Black Marlin (retained) 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 2 3 1.43 2.23 Low >80
Perciformes Istiophoridae Tetrapturus albidus White Marlin (retained)* 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 2 3 1.43 2.23 Low >80
* - ICCAT stock assessment available
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 137 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 5 – Peer review reports Peer Reviewer A
While I agree with the overall conclusion of the assessment team that these fisheries should not be certified, I have a number of comments in relation to scoring of specific performance indicators (P.Is) which are detailed below. In particular, the authors need to provide more information and justification for the definition of retained and bycatch species as ‘Main’ species given the low level of non- targeted species which occur. Although an overall score of 80 has been obtained for the ecosystem component it may be possible that a higher score could be obtained for this component if a more thorough review of available literature was carried out in relation to the MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology (FAM). Even if the fisheries fail to achieve certification, they may be able to promote certain positive aspects such as low environmental impact and it is important, therefore, that this component is fully reviewed.
General issues Some general issues in relation to the report include: The assessment uses a new Fisheries Assessment Methodology (FAM) (Version 2) which incorporates a Risk Based Framework (RBF) to score performance indicators when data deficiency is encountered. Some explanation of why and how the RBF has been applied to the assessment in Section 7 or in another appropriate part of the main body of text of the report may provide clarity to non specialists. [an appropriate note added] The unit of certification is unusual in that it includes several target species and fishing methods. It appears from 8.1 that individual species were scored separately against each of the PIs in Principle 1 and an overall score for each species derived but no text is provided to explain how this was carried out. Some clarification of this process in Section 7 may be useful. [an appropriate note added] The management practices of ICCAT have a major impact on the scoring of these fisheries against the MSC standard and a number of criticisms are made against ICCAT in relation to its constitution, transparency in decision making and resource allocation and the quality of its mechanisms of operation. Very little information apart from a reference to an independent review is provided in the text of the report to support these criticisms. In order to improve the clarity of the report and justify these criticisms it would seem sensible to summarise available information on this issue under Section 5. Administrative Context. [a section has been added quoting the main findings of the independent review panel]
Specific points in relation to PIs: Principle 1 1.1.1 Albacore, Bigeye and Yellowfin all score 75 under this PI. On initial inspection, there seems to be an even split with one element attaining a score of 80 and one element failing
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 138 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
to attain 80 which should, according to the FAM, result in a score of 70. Additional information on how the score of 75 was obtained should be provided in the justification. [It was the judgement of the team that the second SG was partially met. Text has been added.] 1.1.2 The lack of a well defined limit reference point is penalised but the absence of a defined target reference point is not. In order to improve clarity in relation to this issue it may make sense to define reference points as implicit or explicit, state whether these reference points are appropriate for the stock and provide some additional information on how the scores were obtained. [It is obviously not a requirement to meet Principle 1 that a precise target point is defined. The MSY is used as the basis for management and target region is implied. By maintaining the stock above MSY, the fishery is clearly more precautionary that MSC requires.] 1.2.1 Skipjack: A score of 75 is provided, but below the score it is stated that “The fishery meets the 80 guideposts” so this needs to be corrected. Similar to 1.1 there seems to be an even split with one element attaining a score of 80 and one element failing to attain 80 which should, according to the FAM, result in a score of 70. Additional information on how the score of 75 was obtained should be provided in the justification. [Corrected and text added.] 1.2.3 Skipjack: Two elements meet SG60 and one element meets SG80 which implies a score of 65. More information on how the score of 70 was obtained should be provided. [This is well within the scope of judgement of the team to award 70 based on performance within each guidepost. Considerable information is provided to justify this as far as reasonably possible. The FAM provides guidance, but the score is decided by assessment team members based on their judgement.] 1.2.4 Bigeye, Yellowfin, Skipjack: Each of these species meets SG 100 for the first element and meets at least (It’s not clear what score is obtained when an SG is only partially met) SG 80 for the remaining three elements. This should result in a score of 85 or more information on how the score of 80 was obtained should be provided. [See above]
Principle 2 2.1 According to the new FAM (31st July 2009) species used as bait in the fishery should be considered under the Bycatch species component in Principle 2 so the assessment of bait fish should be moved to this component. [Baitfish commentary has been moved to 2.2.1 and 2.2.2] I have a major concern over the definition of the retained species as ‘main’ retained species. Section 7.2.2 of the FAM defines “main retained species”. According to Table 8 of the report, all of the species listed comprise less that 5% of the total catch by weight meaning that they would normally be considered as ‘minor species’. Continuing in the definition of a “main retained species” the FAM states that even 5% may be a considerable catch if the species retained are of high value to the fisher or of particular vulnerability, or if the total catch of the fishery is large. The landings figures provided in Table 8. suggest that the value of retained species is relatively low and that the total catch of the fisheries is extremely low at stock level. This leaves the issue of whether the retained species are particularly
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 139 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
vulnerable. Section 4.2.1 of the report states that “It is highly unlikely (at the noted scale of activity) that the St. Helena fisheries contribute substantially to the overfished status of marlins, or influences the status of wahoo and shark stocks, relative to total removals”. This suggests that the fisheries are unlikely to affect the ‘vulnerability’ of these species at stock level. These factors raise questions over the definition of listed retained species are ‘main’ species. A re-categorisation of these species as ‘minor’ species should be considered or a detailed justification of why they are considered to be ‘main’ species should be provided. [The FAM only provides an example of the inclusion of “main”. The assessment team argues that there are grounds for considering blue marlin as “main”, given that its ICCAT status is "overfished" and it is of market value (common on the market). But if this species alone is considered "main" then the score for the PI would be 60, which we consider is not a balanced reflection of actual circumstances, not least because there remains uncertainty over the stock status of some of the others - in other words there is uncertainty over their vulnerability. On this basis it is considered sensible and thorough to consider them in an RBF. After such analysis we are of the view that our score and justification is appropriate, and the condition raised is reasonable and achievable.] 2.2 Definition of bycatch species as ‘main’ or ‘minor’ is again a major issue in this component. A variety of qualitative sources of information suggest that there is very little discarded bycatch: Section 4.2 of the report states that “With the exception of some sharks, virtually all bycatch is retained and either sold to the SC or retained by the fishermen for home consumption”. Section 4.2.2 describes reports from fishermen that “Little discarding occurs as fishermen use nearly all species caught”. These reports are backed up by landings figures presented in Tables 8 and 9 which provide information on retained shark and other species. If available information shows that less than 5% of the target catch is comprised of retained species, then it is reasonable to assume, based on the information provided, that considerably less than 5% of the target catch is discarded bycatch raising questions over the definition of bycatch species as ‘main bycatch species’. Again a detailed justification of why bycatch species are considered to be ‘main’ or ‘minor’ should be provided. [Continuing from notes above on main and minor, in relation to discards it is not the status of the discard species (nor the choice of the "main" discard species) that has resulted in scores below 80, but the lack of a clear strategy and lack of continuing information reporting protocols for discarding in the fishery. Even if we said there were no "main" discarded species, without information it is likely that the status score would remain at 80.] 2.2.2 It is stated in the justification “There is evidence (from onboard observations)” but no other text was found in the report to support this statement. More information is required in the report to clarify the nature of these onboard observations. [an appropriate note added] 2.3.2 The report refers to “fishing by hook to reduce turtle captures”. It is not clear what this statement means as fishing by hook in the case of longlining can result in major captures of turtles. The type of hooks used eg. barbed or barbless is not described in the report. Barbless hooks can have obvious benefits in releasing animals alive whereas traditional barbed hooks make it much more difficult to release an animal unharmed. Some
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 140 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD confirmation of the type of hooks used in these fisheries would provide some information on the likelihood of animals being released alive. [all fishing is conducted with one hook per line, with only as many lines set as crew members; all lines are actively managed by a fisherman – as a fish takes a hook the line is “struck” and the fish reeled in; barbless hooks are used in the pole and line fishery for skipjack; a barbed hook is typically used in the rod and line fishery] 2.5.1 I am concerned that a score has been provided for this P.I without providing adequate information on the performance of the fishery in relation to detailed points under the FAM. No attempt is made to identify which key elements of the ecosystem need to be addressed in relation to these fisheries? For example, conditions have been attached to the retained and bycatch species components but no information on the effect of the fisheries on these components in terms of impact on ecosystem is provided. A more comprehensive literature review using scientific publications, ICCAT working group reports etc should be carried out to determine if evidence exists in relation to key elements of the ecosystem. Does information exist, for example, on the principal prey species of tunas of the South Atlantic and is anything known about the stock status of key prey species? Can anything be inferred regarding the genetic diversity of these tuna species in relation to the impact of fishing? Can anything be inferred from studies carried out in other locations such as the North Atlantic? [assessment under P2 and P3 is specific to the impacts of this particular fishery; for P1 the impacts relate to the stock as a whole or to a relevant stock component – on this basis it is considered that the ecosystem impacts of the St Helena fishery are likely to be slight, and that the likelihood of this statement being modified as a result of futher information is considered to be small; efforts to identify and access relevant work relating to seamount ecosystems has largely drawn a blank] 2.5.3 Closely related to 2.5.1, a more detailed review of available information in relation to identified key elements of the ecosystem should be carried out. [see comment above]
Principle 3 3.1 Issue 1: The text justifying the score under Issue 1 seems to suggest that the issue meets SG80 but the breakdown of scores provides 70 for this issue. Perhaps the text under the score breakdown justifies the score of 70 but it would improve clarity if more information was provided directly under the justification of scoring for this specific issue. [further explanation has been added] Issue 2: Section 5.2 of the report states that “ICCAT has an explicit and transparent dispute settlement process”. In the justification of this issue, however, it is reported that “there are concerns about transparency within ICCAT both in decision making and resource allocation”. The text in Section 5.2 seems relevant to this issue but the latter statement does not. [the phraseology of the justification has been modified to better reflect the actualité] 3.1.2 The first issue meets SG80 yet the report states that mechanisms relating to the operation of ICCAT may not be that explicit or well developed. It is difficult to reconcile this
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 141 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD statement with a score of SG80. [this statement relating to ICCAT functions has been removed as it is better addressed under PI 3.2.2] 3.1.3 Section 3.5 of the report states that “Although the stated aim is to maximise the long term yield from the tuna stocks, it is not clear that the approach is precautionary or that management decision making is taking uncertainty into account”. This statement does not seem to be in agreement with SG80 which this PI meets: “Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within management policy”. [the point of the reviewer is well made; we have taken the position that PI 3.1.3 deals with the overall long-term objectives for these Atlantic stocks, and that the precautionary principle is sufficiently well stated in ICCATs basic texts to support the score of 80; management objectives specific to the local fisheries under assessment are addressed in PI 3.2.1 and here we are also of the view that how these have been addressed at UK FCO and St Helena government levels is sufficient to warrant the score of 80; the main concerns relate to the application of management in support of these overall and fishery specific objectives, and these have been addressed under other PIs under P1 and P3] 3.2.2 It is not clear from the justification which of the issues has failed to meet SG 80 resulting in a score of 75. [sub-clause scores have been added to the justification text; whilst in general we agree that decision-making processes are in place sufficient to support a score of 80, a gray area exists in the responsiveness and transparency of ICCAT processes relating to “serious and other important issues”, and it is for this reason that we have scored this at 75, and this is addressed under the justification for the second issue in the 80 scoring guidepost] 3.2.4 The PI meets SG 80 for both issues yet a score of 85 is provided. More information on how this score was obtained should be provided. [sub-clause scores have been added to the justification text; the particular circumstances applying in St Helena relating to its extreme isolation give greater credibility to and confidence in the procedures operated by the local stakeholders in monitoring and implementing compliance and enforcement; these are considered to warrant scores slightly above the 80 guidepost under 3 of the 4 sub-clauses and the existing justification text remains appropriate ] 3.2.5 The PI meets SG 80. More information on how a score of 85 was obtained should be provided. [sub-clause scores have been added to the justification text, showing that the ICCAT research dissemination machinery is well-developed and timely ]
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 142 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Peer Reviewer B
This is a very clear and well written report and the reviewer concurs with the proposal not to certify the fishery for the reasons given. Key comments relate to: (i) Overly generous scores for some PIs (ii) Issues of timescale definition in some of the proposed Conditions.
General comments on the Summary and Sections 1-7 The summary is well written and clear in its description of those areas where the fishery falls short of the MSC standard and is also clear in detailing whether this is under the control of the industry, authorities or regional fisheries management body. » Table 2 gives lists mako sharks as by-catch: the species is not identified at this point but is later. It is not always clear whether the text is referring to the St Helena fishery or the wider international regional fishery. [a note of clarification has been added to section 3.1] Section 3.3. refers specifically to the “International fisheries…” while sections 3.4 - 3.6 do not. For example, section 3.6 paragraph 1 states “Catches are generally recorded with sufficient precision….”, it is not clear to which fisheries this statement refers and similarly for the rest of the section. [the term “for Atlantic Fisheries” has been added to the titles of sections 3.4 – 3.6] » Table 2 lists mako sharks as by-catch: the species is not identified at this point but is later. » Table 7 refers to unidentified hammerhead sharks. Some hammerhead species in the SE Atlantic are endangered |(IUCN listing) and it is therefore important to know what species are being caught, even if only in small numbers. Similar comments about identity could be made for some other species of shark and seabirds. [addressed under specific comments below] » Top of page 30 states that there is minimal interaction with ETP species …assumed that the fishery does not pose any significant threat….”. Whilst the gear types used suggests this, the paucity of information about discarded catch coupled with reports of species that may be endangered (e.g. some hammerhead shark species), does not support this assumption. More information would be required for this assumption to become acceptable. [addressed under specific comments below] » Seabird mortality (page 30): need to monitor mortality by species (e.g. record catches, return kills to shore). A Risk Assessment approach, as used in Australia and New Zealand, to assess vulnerability of the different species to mortalities due to fishing may be relevant and usable here. [addressed under specific comments below]
Minor issues » There is a footnote indicated on the eastern Atlantic skipjack stock on page 3 but there is no footnote. [footnote reference removed]
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 143 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
» SICA and PSA are referred to in a number of places without definition or explanation of what they are. [new sections have been added to address deployment of the risk- based framework (RBF) at 1.3 and 7.2; a glossary has also been added at the front of the report] » Reference is made to Box 2 Section 4.1 page 24 but there is no Box 2 (or Box 1) indicated elsewhere in the document. [corrected] » Table 7: hammerhead shark generic name should be Sphyrna rather than Sphyma. [corrected] » Typo: associated to association. Page 32. [corrected] » Table 10: the common names of the first few species of seabird listed are unclear/incomplete. [corrected] » In referring to the Government of St Helena both a lowercase ‘g’ and uppercase ‘G’ are used: these should presumably be uppercase throughout. [corrected] » Bait fish and baitfish are used. [corrected]
Section 8.3 Conditions. Conditions 1 to 3: the wording of the aspects of some of these Conditions are not fully appropriate. Specifically, these Conditions have woolly timelines, focussing on “progress to be achieved by the time of the first surveillance….”. While these Conditions focus on intractable issues with the RFMO, it is not clear what progress is being asked of the client group or how any progress will be measured. In providing guidance to the client group more specific deliverables in terms of progress would be both helpful and necessary. It is also important to make clear that each condition must be fully addressed (closed out) within the period of certification. [adjustments made] Condition 1 should contain an element asking the local management system to review and improve its approach in the area of decision making in relation to PI 3.2.2 with specific objectives and timescales for completion (see comments on PI 3.2.2. below). [element added] Condition 4 is seeking specific actions but firm timelines are missing. The development of a strategy and its subsequent implementation should each have a specific and appropriate date for completion. Condition 5 is appropriate but would be appropriately strengthened by use of similar wording found in Condition 4 relating to the outcome of interactions (sighting, capture retained, capture released alive and likely to survive, capture released dead). [element added] Condition 6: This condition should specifically include the collection of data on not just ETP species but those that could be ETP species, specifically including seabird captures, releases and mortalities. More clarity on the identity of ETP species, or species that may be ETP, is required. This is especially the case for sharks (thresher, hammerhead, etc.) and some seabirds. The addition of a code of practice, to which could then be attached whatever training (if any) is required to enable the individual fishermen to deliver the recording and effective release programme, should be considered. [timelines strengthened and element added]
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 144 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Conditions 5 and 6 are collecting very similar information relating to non-target catches, often for the same or similar species. For effectiveness and implementation cost reasons, these two Conditions would be better combined but with explicit goals to address both ETP and non-ETP by-catch. [the need for strategies and data recording elements addressing 2.2 discarded bycatch and 2.3 ETP interactions has now been integrated within two separate conditions addressing respectively strategy development, and data recording and monitoring]
Section 8.4 Recommended Actions Recommendations 1 and 3 are appropriate. The idea behind Recommendation 2 is appropriate, but the suggested approach to estimate a (precise) acceptable level of mortality for each species is likely to be very onerous and possible undeliverable without comprehensive local and global seabird population assessments (which are unlikely to be available for all species). An alternative approach would be to apply a ecological risk assessment approach (used in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere) to identify those species most at risk so that effort can be focussed on those species first. This approach will also permit the fishery to focus on continuing reduction in captures rather than not exceeding a ‘target’. [there is active survey and monitoring of local seabird roosts and nesting colonies, which can be used, in the first instance, to establish acceptable mortality limits; since the next nearest roost is 700 mls away and there are minimal data points from within a radius of 1000 mls or more from St Helena, it is not clear how much more can be gained from application of an ecological risk assessment approach; nonetheless a clause requiring exploration of this approach has been added] Some additional recommendations have been proposed in the discussions relating to the scoring table. [two additional recommendations have been added]
Comments on Scoring Table Principle 1 A number of Conditions have been raised for P1, it would be helpful to the reader if these were specifically identified within the scoring boxes of the relevant PIs. [done] 1.1.1 No comment. 1.1.2 Given the poorly defined reference points score of 75 for each species here seems overly generous. A score of 70 would seem more appropriate or some additional justification for the higher score should be given. [The score is below 80 due to the lack of well-defined reference points, rather than their absence altogether. There is a clear weakness in having ill-defined reference points and basing status on the single MSY point. However, this, if used correctly, is adequate to manage the stock. There is an implicit limit reference point (50% MSY), but it has not been agreed.] 1.1.3 Albacore, bigeye & yellowfin: that the TAC has not been adjusted downwards to adequately enforce a level of catch that will deliver recovery over a moderate time frame is indicative of weak management. If catches rise, and there is nothing to stop this, then the
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 145 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
recovery will be delayed. It is difficult to see how this can equate to the application of an adequate strategy and a score of 80. 1.2.1 As above, the score of 80 for three of the stocks (albacore, bigeye and yellowfin) seems too generous for a strategy where there is considerable uncertainty over how the RFMO will react and thus whether adequate and timely action would be taken in the event of need. The recovery of the stocks appears to hang on catches remaining at low levels. Given these observations it can hardly be said that that “The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives….”. [For the comments above, we agree that the management response is inadequate, but we also attributed this to the lack of harvest control rule (1.2.2) rather than other components of the harvest strategy, and we should not double score the same issue. Nothing in these comments suggest that we were wrong in this.] 1.2.2 No comment. 1.2.3 No comment. 1.2.4 No comment.
Principle 2 2.1.1 The consideration of billfish appears to be based solely on the quota allocated by ICCAT and that reported taken in the fishery. The Standard requires reference to the threat of harm and the 80 guidepost refers to biologically based limits. Some further justification is therefore required to demonstrate that the retained billfish are not being adversely impacted by the fishery under consideration. This should be based on the status of the stocks of the specific species of billfish taken in the fishery or through using a risk-based approach. Depending on the outcome, this may require billfish to be added to the Condition addressing marlin (Condition 4). [the risk-based approach has been applied in this case – see Appendix 4; focusing on those species that contribute by far the most to retained catch] 2.1.2 The description of the fishing operations as a management strategy is inappropriate as this is determined by the individual fishermen and is not a strategic but a tactical or operational decision. This could be described as an operational methodology. [operational substituted for management in first line of justification] Based on it being a low risk fishery, it is argued that the baitfish fishery does not need a management strategy. A counter argument is that the tuna fishery is, to a significant degree, dependent on the ready availability of baitfish and that should there be an issue in the local abundance or availability this will have significant impact on the tuna fishery. Moreover, the baitfish may also be an important resource for local predators (e.g. nesting seabirds) and local depletions may have an adverse impact on these also. It would therefore seem prudent for the fishery to develop a management strategy that could be used to quickly address any developing issues in the baitfish stock(s) to protect both the tuna fishery and other elements of the ecosystem. Given the scale of the baitfish fishery and its low risk status this does not require a Condition but would be best dealt with as a recommendation. [a crude estimate of baitfish usage by the commercial fleet suggests a generous maximum of some 15t per year (based on all vessels fishing every weekday and using 100 x 50g
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 146 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD baitfish per day), and more pratically something less than 5t per year; for a small-pelagic species this level of extraction is very minor; whilst we agree with the sentiment of this comment, we feel that it is excessive in context] 2.1.3 It would be helpful to the reader to identify which Condition (#4) addresses the need for this PI. As above (2.1.2) the baitfish fishery (even with its low risk status), is important to the sustainability of the tuna fishery and probably local predators as well, and a review of the adequacy of the data collected may be advisable through a recommendation. [we are of the view that this is excessive in the context of the volume of likely baitfish extraction levels] 2.2.1 The shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), defined as vulnerable by IUCN, has recently been listed for additional protection under the Convention of Migratory Species, to which the UK is a party. Whilst not legally binding, this does suggest that additional measures to protect this species should be taken where possible. Best practice would support this, and increased efforts to accurately record sighting, capture and release information, together with increased efforts to release alive captured individuals would also be appropriate. [Condition 6, raised to record ETP interactions, has been extended to cover discarded bycatch under PI 2.2.1] 2.2.2 It would be helpful to the reader to identify which Condition (#5) addresses the need for this PI. The justification and the wording relating to release of mako sharks would be better if aligned with the wording in the Condition referring to sharks and other discarded (non-retained) by-catch. The development a strategy and monitoring programme that records sightings, captures and releases (alive and dead separately) is entirely appropriate but should be generalised to cover all sharks and other discarded by-catch. If a high release rate can be demonstrated then this will yield both higher scores and also demonstrate the commitment of the industry to sustainable fishing at very limited cost. In order to achieve this, it could be recommended that a generic code of practice be developed for the handling of all non-target species but which should specifically cover sharks, seabirds and any ETP species. [Condition 6, raised to record ETP interactions, has been extended to cover discarded bycatch under PI 2.2.1] 2.2.3 It would sensible and cost effective for the proposed monitoring discard programme to be combined (or at least aligned) with that to collect systematic interactions with ETP species, especially as some sharks are also ETP species (i.e. combine Conditions 5 and 6 with explicit goals to deliver both discard and ETP monitoring). [Condition 6, raised to record ETP interactions, has been extended to cover discarded bycatch under this PI] 2.3.1 Table 7 lists by-catch taken in the fishery. In this table the specific names of the mackerel shark and the hammerhead shark are not given, so determining whether these are or include ETP species is not possible. The hammerheads Sphyrna lewini and S. mokarran are both listed by IUCN as endangered and occur the eastern Atlantic. There is, therefore, the possibility that the by-catch of hammerheads indicated in Table 7 includes endangered species, thus, the statement about sharks in St Helena waters not appearing in CITES annexes is an incomplete view of endangerment and should be adjusted accordingly. [appropriate adjustment to text made] 2.3.2 The reviewer does not feel that the text justifies the given score of 80. The text refers to a strategy to avoid most ETP species. This appears, on the evidence provided, to
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 147 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
overstate the case. What are described are a series of measures that are applied to avoid all unnecessary interactions, probably more due to loss of fishing time or loss of catch than to protect ETP species (i.e. operational decisions), although the outcome is also positive for the ETP species. The recommendation that the Dept. of Agriculture develops a strategy is also an indication that developed strategy is lacking. Either more evidence of a strategy needs to be provided or this PI should be rescored to 75 with a Condition to develop a strategy to manage ETP interactions. If required, such a strategy should have a framework that would cover those ETP species identified as currently having interaction with the fishery, those that have potential to do so and any newly defined ETP species, without change required to the strategy. [agreed – scoring reduced and a condition added] 2.3.3 It would be helpful to the reader to identify which Condition (#6) addresses the need for this PI. The issue of ETP shark species raised under PI 2.3.1 above also needs to be addressed in the text under this PI. [done] 2.4.1 No comment. 2.4.2 Additional evidence that this fishery complies with MARPOL in relation to disposal of gear would increase the strategic approach to habitat protection, as would an operational code of practice addressing such things as gear disposal, anchoring practice, the existence of areas where anchoring was not permitted to protect benthic habitat. [additional material has been added] 2.4.3 The information available, including the number of days fished and the fleet size which provide a way to estimate the number of bottom contacts per year, enable the level of interaction and harm done to be defined. This should justify a score in excess of 85: 90 or even 95 would be more appropriate. [whilst the St Helena fishery meets the SG80 guideposts, because there is limited direct observation / monitoring of habitat condition (because the resources to do this are not available on the island) it is felt that practice slightly exceeds the SG80 standard, rather than falls slightly short of the SG100 standard; the score of 85 is retained] 2.5.1 No comment. 2.5.2 A key part of the management strategy is stock management through the application of TACs to protect the tuna populations (top predators). Evidence of partially effective implementation also includes the observation of recovery of some stocks, indicating that the ecosystem is sufficiently robust to enable recovery for top predators. This does not, however, warrant a higher score. [phrase added to the justification] 2.5.3 Other information should also be available relating to ecosystem wellbeing. For example, growth rates and diet of the various species should be available and will contain elements related to ecosystem health that can be monitored for trends over time. [text added to justification]
Principle 3 Some explanation of acronyms and abbreviations where first used would be helpful to the reader, especially those not familiar with UK or UK Overseas Territories institutions (Defra, JNCC, ExCo., etc.). [glossary added to front of report]
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 148 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.1.1 It would be helpful to the reader to identify which Condition (#1) addresses the need for this PI. UK Overseas Territories usually have recourse to the UK justice system for high level dispute resolution. This is probably the case for St Helena and, if so, this should be noted with the text on dispute resolution. [phrase added to justification] 3.1.2 No comment. 3.1.3 No comment. 3.1.4 No comment. 3.2.1 The text reads that, while the policy and objectives are not fully developed, the Government of St Helena is trying to ‘do the right thing’ and deserves a score of 80, which is rather debatable. Perhaps there should be a condition or at least a recommendation here for a review of the policy as it relates to the fishery with the view to developing the policy to give consistency between London (FCO) and Jamestown and that explicitly defines the short- and long terms objectives for this fishery. This would be consistent with best practice and should not be too onerous. [we accept the validity of the proposal for a recommendation – which has been drafted] 3.2.2 The assessment team have focussed on ICCAT under this PI, with Condition (#1) focusing exclusively on ICCAT. While ICCAT deserves the majority of attention at his point, there are some issues with the local decision making processes that have been identified in the report that ought to be addressed. For example, issues have been identified with collection of adequate data in a number of areas (retained non-target species – status 2.1.1 and information 2.1.3), discarded species (status 2.2.1, management strategy 2.2.2 and information 2.2.3), ETP species (status 2.3.1, management strategy 2.3.2 and information 2.3.3) as well as provision of some catch information to ICCAT (including both tuna and minor species catches). Some text should be included to explain the positive aspects and shortcomings of the local (including both St Helena and UK) decision making processes. Condition 1 should also have an element asking the local management system to review and improve its approach in this area with specific objectives and timescales for completion. [additional text has been added to the justification and Condition 1 has been modified accordingly] 3.2.3 A score of 85 has been given but text for this PI lacks a key element to achieve the 80 guidepost. This 80 guidepost paragraph 2 seeks “Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied...” The text lacks a description of what sanctions exist and without this, this PI does not meet the 80 guidepost. [a sentence has been added to explain the nature of sanction] 3.2.4 The capacity of St Helena to contribute to research on highly migratory species and multinational fisheries is clearly limited. However, the nature of the fishery (small vessels, often single hooks and release of key by-catch species) would enable this fishery to contribute to tagging programmes funded internationally and engage with and raise its profile within the ICCAT community. This might be of particular relevance for some of the shark species of interest to ICCAT and elasmobranch research groups and could initially be followed up through ICCAT Working Groups or the scientific staff of the ICCAT Secretariat. [note added]
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 149 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
3.2.5 The score of 85 appears to be too generous based on the evidence provided. While the international nature of Working Groups meets the 80 guidepost as addressing review of key parts of the management system, one independent review of ICCAT in 40 years is very occasional. Moreover, the St Helena management performance has no system for review or monitoring, which clearly falls below the 80 guidepost. It would seem more appropriate on the text provided for a score of 75 with a Condition for a programme of internal and external reviews commensurate with the scale of the fishery. For example, an internal review within one year and triennial internal review thereafter and with an external review within three years with a subsequent programme of and external review every five years. Such external reviews may be able to be conducted remotely. [the score of 80 has been retained, but Condition 1 has been expanded to incorporate review of the St Helena management system]
Action Plan The Client Action Plan response to the proposed Conditions and Recommendations is full and complete except that no timescales are indicated. It may be presumed that these will agree with those where indicated in the Conditions but clear agreement would be advantageous. Also the recommendations contain no timelines. [timelines tightened up] Depending on the response to the various Peer Reviewer comments, especially in relation to the Conditions and Recommendations, the Client Action Plan may require some updating. [updated]
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 150 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
Appendix 6 – Client Action Plan
The St Helena sustainable tuna fisheries partnership is committed to ensuring that the St Helena tuna fisheries are operated and managed responsibly, and as a result the partnership has drawn up the following action plan in response to the points raised in this assessment of these fisheries, paying particular attention to requirements laid down as conditions of this assessment, as well as the recommendations, as shown in Section 8 of the report. Overall, the fisheries partnership will prepare a code of conduct (also addressing Recommendation 4) for the St Helena tuna and other fisheries, incorporating details of its policies with regard to sustainable fisheries management and practices, and addressing the issues described below. Condition 1 – Improve basis by which ICCAT manages stocks, and ensures the compliance of its members to decisions made Whilst recognising that the island of St Helena is a very minor player in the exploitation of Atlantic tunas, the fisheries partnership will use its best endeavours (in writing and at meetings) – directly with ICCAT and through its representation by the UK – to encourage the relevant ICCAT scientific committees to recognise and then apply management of the Atlantic tuna stocks on the basis of a reference points system, incorporating “target”, “precautionary” and “limit” reference points. It will make approaches to the FCO and ICCAT, in writing, and by direct representation, on this basis. In addition the St Helena government will undertake a review of the adequacy of the local management regime to bring about improvements – notably in addressing weaknesses evident in data collection, collation and forwarding, strategy development with respect to discards and ETP species interactions – and including the drafting of clear statements of long and short-term objectives for the management of these fisheries (addressing Recommendation 5). Condition 2 - Management of skipjack stock The fisheries partnership will use its best endeavours – directly with ICCAT and through its representation by the UK – to encourage the relevant ICCAT scientific committees to develop a complete harvest strategy for skipjack incorporating management by an accepted reference point system, based on evidence that the stock is in good condition, that data quantity and quality supports the assessment methodology employed, that management of the stock is based on evidence, and that sufficient monitoring is in place to verify that the management approach is achieving the objectives set for the management of the stock. It will make approaches to the FCO and ICCAT, in writing, and by direct representation, on this basis. Condition 3 – Establishment of responsive harvest control rules for each fishery The fisheries partnership will use its best endeavours – directly with ICCAT and through its representation by the UK – to establish management of the four tuna fisheries using widely agreed harvest control rules based on clear evidence, and responsive to changes in stock condition, with evidence that application of the HCR is likely to be effective in achieving the
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 151 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
objectives of the harvest strategy for each stock (and fleet component). It will make approaches to the FCO and ICCAT, in writing and by direct representation, on this basis. Insofar as in practice there are limits to the influence that St Helena and the UK Government can have on the outcomes of deliberations within ICCAT, consideration will be given to the practicality of developing and applying local harvest control rules that respond to the best scientific evidence available as to the state of the relevant Atlantic / southern Atlantic / eastern Atlantic tuna stocks. Condition 4 – Retained bycatch species The fisheries partnership will independently design and implement a strategy to reduce the incidence of capture of blue and white marlins, including the keeping of records on when marlins are sighted, when caught and retained, and when caught and released (both alive and dead). Condition 5 – Strategies for managing interactions with ETP and discarded bycatch species The fisheries partnership will develop and implement strategies for the management of interactions with ETP and discarded bycatch species, with a particular focus on interaction with sharks (in particular with mako and hammerhead sharks), billfishes and seabirds - caught / sighted / released / landed. These strategies will include monitoring the frequency and outcome of interactions, and seeks to minimise shark and seabird mortalities. Condition 6 – Collection of information on interactions with ETP and bycatch species The fisheries partnership will develop and implement enhanced data reporting and recording systems for monitoring ETP species and bycatch interactions. This will be based around skippers providing the fishery department with a simple daily record noting where they have been fishing, what they have caught, and details of any interactions with ETP and bycatch species – whether sighted, caught or released. Recommendation 1 – Report to ICCAT on an annual basis, and confirm receipt of, data on all landings of relevant species The St Helena Department of Fisheries, in consultation with the industry, will prepare and submit current figures on the capture of all species of interest to ICCAT, and will check with ICCAT as to what data relevant to the last 10 years is missing from the time series for St Helena, and seek to rectify this using purchase records from the St Helena Fisheries Corporation and the Argos Cold Stores. Recommendation 2 – Establish acceptable levels of fishery related mortality of protected seabirds The fisheries partnership will work with partners to establish reference points (e.g. up to a level of x deaths per month) as to what constitutes an acceptable level of fishery-related mortality in regard to the hooking of protected (and other) species of birds. The partnership will also explore the value of using an ecological risk assessment approach as a means of strengthening assessments of risk to bird populations. Recommendation 3 - Develop an appropriate management strategy for St Helena wahoo stock
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 152 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries
FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL LTD
The fisheries partnership will develop a simple harvest control rule for the harvesting of wahoo around the island linked to changes in catch composition, volume and effort. Signed on behalf of the St Helena Sustainable Fisheries Partnership by:
Gerald Benjamin, Senior Fisheries Officer Terry Richards, Manager of the St Helena Fisheries Corporation Trevor Thomas, Chair of the St Helena Fishermen’s Association
MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES July 2010 153 Public Comment Draft Report – St Helena pole & line and rod & line tuna fisheries