SCS Global Services Report
MSC FULL-ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT
Southern Gulf of California small pelagics, Purse Seine Fishery, Sinaloa & Nayarit, Mexico
Maz Sardina, S.A. De C.V. Estero De Urias S.N., Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico, 82099 Armando Coppel Azcona, General Manager
DATE OF FIELD AUDIT 04/08-10/2015
Prepared by:
Dr. Sian Morgan, Regional Director, Americas, SCS, Team Leader/Principle 2 Expert Dr. Carlos Alvarez Flores, Stock Assessment Consultant, Principle 1 Expert Dr. Oscar Sosa-Nishizaki, Fisheries Consultant, Principle 3 Expert Ms. Gabriela Anhalzer, Sustainable Seafood Coordinator, SCS.
Natural Resources Division +1.510.452.6392 [email protected]
2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main | +1.510-452-8001 fax www.SCSGlobalServices.com
SCSglobalservices.com
1. Table of Contents MSC FULL-ASSESSMENT REPORT ...... 1 1. Table of Contents ...... 2 2. Glossary ...... 6 3. Executive Summary ...... 9 4. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 12 Audit Team ...... 12 Peer Reviewers ...... 13 5. Description of the Fishery ...... 15 5.1 Unit of Certification and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 15 5.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 17 5.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)...... 17 5.2 Overview of the Fishery ...... 17 5.2.1 Background on the History of the Fishery and the Client Group ...... 17 3.2.2 Fishing Area and Habitat ...... 19 3.2.3 Fishery Management System ...... 21 5.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 22 5.3.1 Low Trophic Level Species (LTL) ...... 22 5.3.2 Species ...... 23 5.3.3 Distribution ...... 24 5.3.4 Life History ...... 24 5.3.5 Landings ...... 25 5.3.6 Stock Assessment and Status of the Fishery ...... 29 5.3.7 General Administration, Management and Regulations ...... 34 5.3.8 Reference Points and Harvest Control Rule ...... 36 5.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 43 5.4.1 The Observer Program ...... 43 5.4.2 Overview of Non-target Catch ...... 44 5.4.3 Retained Species ...... 44 5.4.4 Bycatch ...... 49 5.4.5 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species ...... 50
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 2 of 264
5.4.6 Habitat ...... 55 5.4.7 Ecosystem ...... 60 5.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 62 5.5.1 The Fishery and Jurisdictions in the Area of Operation ...... 62 5.5.2 Legal structure for Fisheries Management and Fishery Management Plan ...... 62 5.5.3 Concurrent Laws with the Fishery Management ...... 65 5.5.4 Groups with Interest in the Fishery...... 66 5.5.5 Management Organizations and Decision Making Processes ...... 66 5.5.5 Monitoring, Control, Surveillance and Enforcement of the Fishery ...... 68 5.5.6 Education and Training ...... 71 5.5.7 Fishery’s Research Plan ...... 71 6. Evaluation Procedure ...... 74 6.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 74 6.2 Assessment Methodologies ...... 76 6.3 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 76 6.3.1 Site Visit ...... 76 6.3.2 Stakeholder Consultations and Due Diligence ...... 79 6.3.3 Scoring Process ...... 80 7. Traceability ...... 82 7.1 Eligibility Date ...... 82 7.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 82 7.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 82 7.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody 83 8. Evaluation Results ...... 84 8.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 85 8.2 Summary of Scores ...... 86 8.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 87 8.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 88 9. References ...... 89 10. Appendices ...... 93 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 93 Principle 1 ...... 93 Principle 2 ...... 115 Principle 3 ...... 162 Appendix 1.2 Conditions ...... 189
Condition 1-1 ...... 189 Condition 1-2 ...... 190 Condition 1-3(A) ...... 192 Condition 1-3(B) ...... 193 Condition 1-4 ...... 194 Condition 1-5 ...... 196 Condition 1-6 ...... 197 Condition 1-7 ...... 199 Condition 1-8 ...... 200 Condition 2-1 ...... 202 Condition 2-2 ...... 204 Condition 2-3 ...... 204 Condition 2-4 ...... 205 Condition 2-5 ...... 205 Condition 2-6 ...... 207 Condition 2-7 ...... 208 Condition 3-1 ...... 211 Condition 3-2 ...... 212 Condition 3-3 ...... 213 Condition 3-4 ...... 214 Condition 3-5 ...... 216 Condition 3-6 ...... 217 11. Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports ...... 219 Peer Reviewer No 1 ...... 219 Peer Reviewer No 2 ...... 240 12. Appendix 3. Stakeholder Submissions ...... 248 13. Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency ...... 248 14. Appendix 6 Objections Process ...... 252 15. Appendix 7. Supporting Evidence ...... 253 Appendix 7.1 Confirmation of Modified Assessment Tree ...... 253 Appendix 7.2 Vessel List ...... 256 Appendix 7.3 Species List ...... 257 Appendix 7.4 Excerpts from the Mitigation Measures Protocol ...... 259 Appendix 7.5 Support Letter for Client Action Plan ...... 261
Comments Anyone wishing to comment on this document or any other MSC scheme documents is encouraged to do so by sending an email to [email protected].
2. Glossary
AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process ASI Accreditation Services International BAC Biologically Acceptable Catch
B0 unfished biomass
BMSY biomass at maximum sustainable yield CAB Certification Assessment Body Comités Consultivos Nacionales de Normalización (National Consulting CCNN Normalization Committees) Consejos Estatales de Pesca y Acuacultura (State Councils for Fisheries and CEPA Aquaculture)
Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, CICESE Baja California CICIMAR Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species cm Centimeter Consejo Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura (National Council for Fisheries CNPA and Aquaculture) COBI Comunidad y Biodiversidad CNP Carta Nacional Pesquera (National Fisheries Chart) Comisión Oceanográfica Intergubernamental/la Zona Costera de la región COI/IOCARIBE del Caribe (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission/the Caribbean Shoreline Zone)
COFEMER Comisión Federal de Mejora Regulatoria Comisión Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura (National Commission of Fish CONAPESCA and Agriculture)
CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort Centro Regional de Investigación Pesquera (Regional Center for Fisheries CRIP Research)
DAT Default Assessment Tree ETP Environmentally Threatened or Protected ERA Ecological Risk Assessment ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 6 of 264
F Fishing rate/catching rate FAM Fisheries Assessment Methodology v2.1 FAO Food and Agriculture Organization [of the United Nations] FCM Fishery Certification Methodology v6.1
FLIM fishing rate at which catchability will be impaired
FMSY fishing rate at which catchability is sustainable and at a maximum g Gram (0.001 kg) INAPESCA Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (National Fisheries Institute) IPI Inseparable or practicably inseparable IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature Ley Federal Sobre Metrología y Normalización (Federal Law on Metrology LFMN and Standardization) LFRA Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección del Ambiente (General LGEEPA Law for the Ecological Equilibrium and the Protection of the Environment) Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables (General Law for LGPAS Sustainable Fishing and Aquaculture) LTL Low Trophic Level stocks LRP Limit reference point mm Millimeter MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MT Metric Ton NCMC National Coalition for Marine Conservation NGO Non-Governmental Organization nm Nautical mile (1nm = 1.852 km) NOS Noroeste (northwest) PCAC-LME Pacific Central American Coast-Large Marine Ecosystem PROFEPA Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y SAGARPA Alimentación (Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food) SCS Scientific Certification Systems SG Scoring guidepost SICA Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 7 of 264
SL Standard Length (from tip of closed mouth to end of fleshy body) SNI Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (National Investigators System)
SPMP Small Pelagics Management Plan SSB and R Spawning Stock Biomass and Recruitment TAB Technical Advisory Board [of the MSC] TAC Total Allowable Catch TL Total length TRP Target reference point VPA Virtual Population Analysis WWF World Wildlife Fund
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 8 of 264
3. Executive Summary
This report presents the MSC assessment of the purse seine fishery for small pelagics in the southern Gulf of California, Mexico, currently targeting thread herring (Opisthonema spp.). Findings were prepared by SCS Global Services (SCS), an MSC-accredited, independent, third party conformity assessment body. The assessment was completed in accordance with MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing as prescribed in MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 (January 2013) and associated guidance to the Certification Requirements v1.3 (January 2013). The fishery was assessed against a modified version of the Default Assessment Tree, which was altered to assess a stock complex versus single stock. The stock complex constitutes three commercially indistinguishable thread herring species: O. libertate, O. bulleri and O. medirastre.
To our knowledge, this is the first time that any fishery in the states of Sinaloa and Nayarit has undergone assessment against the MSC standard. The small pelagic fishery in the northern Gulf of California, which targets both Pacific sardines (Sardinops sagax caerulea) and thread herring (O. libertate) was certified in 2011. The formal identification for the fishery is the Southern Gulf of California small pelagics fishery, but for the purposes of this report, the fishery can also be referred to as the “Sinaloan & Nayarit, or Southern thread herring fishery”.
Maz Sardina S.A. De C.V. is a commercial fishing operation with ten vessels, each with approximately ten fishers’ onboard, landing in Mazatlán in the state of Sinaloa, Mexico. All vessels operate within the Mexican Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) using purse-seine gear. Maz Sardina is a subsidiary of Grupo PINSA, which also includes the Pesca Azteca tuna-fishing fleet, a sophisticated processing facility, cold storage area and marketing subsidiaries. The fleet fishes primarily for thread herring and Pacific anchoveta (Cetengralus mysticetus), the latter reffered in this report by its common Mexican Spanish name, bocona sardine. There is also a composite of other small pelagic species including: Pacific sardine, red-eye round herring (Etrumeus teres) and chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus).
The proposed Unit of Certification is comprised exclusively of the ten Maz Sardina vessels assessed in this report. Therefore, the Unit of Assessment is equal to the Unit of Certification, and there are no other eligible fishers.
Table 1. Unit of Certification and Unit of Assessment
Vessels Assessed & Unit Species Location Gear On Certificate Unit of Mexican territorial waters in the states Opisthonema Purse seine Assessment of Sinaloa and Nayarit, inside the Gulf of See Appendix 6.1 spp. nets (UoA) California Unit of Mexican territorial waters in the states Opisthonema Purse seine Certification of Sinaloa and Nayarit, inside the Gulf of See Appendix 6.1 spp. nets (UoC) California
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 9 of 264
No Performance Indicators (PIs) failed to reach the minimum Scoring Guidepost (SG) of 60, and the average scores for the three Principles remained above SG80 (Table 2). The team issued a total of 20 scoring issue-level conditions for 14 different PIs that did not meet SG80 level. The fishery received nine conditions in Principle 1, seven conditions in Principle 2 and six conditions in Principle 3. The Client Action Plan, detailed in Appendix 1.2 was produced to meet these conditions.
Table 2: Summary of scores for the US North Pacific sablefish fishery (2 UoAs: longline hook and line and pot gear)
Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 80.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 80.7 Principle 3 – Management System 80.4
In Principle 1, the Performance Indicators pertaining to stock status and reference points scored above SG80, indicating that there is currently no perceived problem with the health of the stock or the existence of management measures to control removals. The management portion of Principle 1 scored lower because a number of the elements related to the harvest strategy and stock assessment require further improvements. The stock assessment, despite advances in handling uncertainty, yielded partly inconsistent results that need to be directly addressed by the management authority.
Principle 2 generally scored well for performance indicators related to Habitats and Ecosystems. The Ecosystem PIs were evaluated as two separate ecosystem elements: pelagic and estuarine. Performance indicators related to Retained, Bycatch and Endangered Threatened and Protected (ETP) species were evaluated based on observer coverage. While approximately 6% percentage of the fleet is monitored, observer data remain unreliable as they are generated from a single observer on a single vessel. Management and Information PIs scored under SG80 in a number of cases. Three species were evaluated as “main” retained: bocona sardine for volume, and both spotted eagle ray (Aetobatus narinari) and devil rays (Mobula japonica), due to vulnerability.
For Principle 3 the general legal framework, particularly governance and policy is generally strong in Mexico and scored well. In contrast, there is evidence that the fishery specific management system is developing, and can be strengthened in terms of its decision makes processes, research plan and management performance evaluation. Compliance and enforcement in this system is the weakest aspect of the fishery, and work will be needed to assure that CONAPESCA as the responsible agency upholds existing legal size limits and effort limits for the fishery.
The assessment team selected to collectively meet the MSC requirements for expert teams included three members: Dr. Sian Morgan, Team Leader, Principle 2 Expert (USA), Dr. Carlos M. Alvarez-Flores, Principle 1 Expert (Mexico) and Dr. Oscar Sosa-Nishizaki, Principle 3 Expert (Mexico).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 10 of 264
The team performed an on-site visit in Mazatlán Sinaloa, Mexico, April 8th-10th, 2015. The visit included meetings with client representatives (Maz Sardina), government scientists from the National Fisheries Institute (Instituto Nacional de la Pesca, INAPESCA) and managers from the National Commission of Fish and Agriculture (Comisión Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura, CONAPESCA). Stakeholders were notified of the onsite visit, invited to speak with the team regarding any concerns and time was scheduled during the onsite to meet with stakeholders, however, this fishery is relatively small, and no stakeholder comments were received by the SCS assessment team.
Peer Review of the assessment was conducted by Dr. Richard Parrish and Dr. Alvaro Hernandez. Scores in Principle 3 were changed as a result of Peer Reviewer comments, and ammendments were made to the rational and background sections
The report was posted for Public Comment to the MSC website on July 5, 2016, with the public comment period closing on August 4, 2016. No comments were received. The positive certification determination has been finalized, and with the posting of the Final Report commences the 15 working day objection period
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 11 of 264
4. Authorship and Peer Reviewers
Audit Team The assessment was be led by Dr. Morgan and supported by two independent experts; Dr. Alvarez and Dr. Sosa-Nishizaki. Collectively, team members meet the requirements of Section 27.5 in section C of the MSC Certification Requirements (Version 1.4, January 2014).
Dr. Siân Morgan, SCS Global Services (Team Leader and Principle 2 Expert) Dr. Sian Morgan is an ISO 9001:2008 certified lead auditor in SCS’s Sustainable Seafood Certification program, which includes both fishery and chain of custody certification under the auspices of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). In Mexico, Dr. Morgan has been involved and/ or led pre and full assessments including the Gulf of Mexico Pacific Sardine surveillance audit and the Gulf of California (Sonora) full assessment of thread herring as well as numerous other MSC assessments in Canada, the US, and central America. Dr. Morgan has ten years of experience in the fields of marine ecology and fisheries science with particular expertise in markets-based fisheries reform, certification and quantitative methods for decision analysis. Dr. Morgan has worked in non-governmental, academic and consulting settings and brings to the team a strong background in multi-stakeholder consultation. Past projects managed by Siân Morgan include developing SeaChoice, a national sustainable seafood program for Canada, conceiving pragmatic trade tools for the CITES Secretariat and researching species responses to area-based management for WWF. Dr. Morgan is qualified to audit the MSC and the ASC standards, including the MSC Risk-based framework, Low Trophic Level MSC assessments, MSC Chain of custody audits and SAI’s SA 8000 social accountability audits.
Dr. Carlos M. Alvarez Flores, President of Okeanos-Oceanides Consortium (Principle 1 Expert) Dr. Carlos Alvarez-Flores was born in Mexico City in 1961 and obtained Bachelors of Science and Master of Science degrees at the National University of Mexico. He later moved to Seattle, USA to obtain a Doctor of Philosophy degree at the School of Fisheries of the University of Washington. His research interests are focused on the management and conservation of wildlife and fisheries. This includes abundance estimation; assessment of population status; estimation of population parameters; the effect of human intervention; direct harvest; bycatch and associated environmental effects; projections based on biological potential; population viability; risk assessment; design of alternative management strategies. His background comes from work dealing with large, pelagic, data rich fisheries, but his current assignments are related to small-scale, coastal, data poor fisheries. Therefore, his present challenge is to combine ideas, techniques, knowledge and experience to improve the performance of these problematic activities in developing countries. Most of his experience has been focused on practical investigations applied to population and fishery assessment and management as a consultant for governments, NGOs and the private sector of different countries. To the present, he has worked for SCS for over two years in MSC pre-assessments, assessments and surveillance audits of different types of fisheries in different countries.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 12 of 264
Dr. Oscar Sosa-Nishizaki, Lead scientist at Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, México (CICESE) (Principle 3 Expert) Dr. Sosa is a fisheries research scientist at Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, Mexico (CICESE), where he teaches, at the graduate level, the Fisheries Ecology and Fish Population Dynamics courses, with 25 years’ experience. Dr. Sosa is the elected president of the Mexican Fisheries Society and Mexican Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, and member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences. Dr. Sosa has been member of national committees for the development of standard rules for the Elasmobranch fisheries and Sport fishing fisheries, and has participate in the assessment of large pelagic fisheries in Mexican waters. Dr. Sosa was one of the reviewers of the Baja California lobster fishery assessment report in the MSC process and has been on MSC assessment teams for several Mexican fisheries including the Gulf of California Mexican Sardine fishery.
Peer Reviewers
The peer reviewers were selected based on their qualifications and competencies.
Dr. Richard Parrish, Independent Consultant
Dr. Parrish holds M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from Oregon State University and has worked for Victoria Fisheries and Wildlife Department (Melbourne), at the California Department of Fish and Game (in pelagic fisheries and then as Chief of the groundfish program) and then held a position as a fisheries biologist with the Pacific Environmental Group (NMFS) in Pacific California (now the Environmental Division of the Southwest Fisheries Center). Dr. Parrish’s work on coastal pelagic species is relevant to the fishery under assessment: . Fish stock biology /ecology: Dr. Parrish has over five years of experience working with the biology and population dynamics of small pelagics. Dr. Parrish has researched the relationships between physical oceanographic factors and fisheries. His work focused on coastal pelagics in eastern boundary currents with extensive working trips to all four eastern boundary currents, as well as the Kuroshio and Brazil Currents. He has significant background in how the North Pacific works, how climatic variation is likely to affect major fish stocks and in fishery modeling. . Fish stock Assessment: Dr. Parrish has over five years of experience applying relevant stock assessment techniques being used by the Sinaloa Thread Herring fishery. He was a member of the original Coastal Pelagics FMP Team and developed the present control rule for Pacific sardine. Dr. Parrish also worked as a Research Manager for Del Monte Food’s in the Sultanate of Oman, conducting fishery and fishery independent research using a wide variety of fishing gear (gillnets, bottom trawls, mid-water trawls, benthic longlines, fyke nets and seine nets,) and fisheries science methods (e.g. hydro-acoustic surveys, tagging and port sampling programs and otolith reading).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 13 of 264
Dr. Alvaro Hernandez. Professor and Researcher Dr. Hernandez holds M.Sc. from the National Polytechnic Institute, Mexico in Marine Sciences (Fisheries Stock Assessment) and a Ph.D. from the University of Delaware, Delaware USA in Marine Policy (Fisheries Economics). Since 2014 Dr. Hernandez has held a position as Professor and Researcher at the Universidad Marista de Merida in Mexico. Dr. Hernadez’s several years of fishery work experience and current knowledge of Mexico fishery context and the language qualify him as a peer review for this assessment: . Biology fishing impacts on aquatic Ecosystems: Dr. Hernandez has over five years’ experience in research and policy analysis for management of fisheries impacts in the region. He held a position as Senior Fisheries Officer for the World Wildlife Fund – Mexico. Dr. Hernandez implemented, monitored, and evaluated projects on sustainable fisheries management in the Mesoamerican Reef Ecorregion. . Fishery management and operations: Dr. Hernandez has extensive research experience in Mexico of fisheries management and policy, fisheries economics, econometrics, fisheries stock assessment and simulation models, scientific and technical writing, ocean and coastal policy, knowledge on intergovernmental institutions like FAO, UN system, IUCN, OECD. His work also includes the role of practicing fishery manager having worked as Senior Scientist for the Regional Center of Fisheries Research in Yucatan, Mexico, where he produced Fisheries Management Plans, and strategies several Mexican fisheries. He’s also worked providing technical assistance on stock assessment and fishing effort impact, to fishery sector, such as fisheries managers, fishermen, and industrial fisheries sector.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 14 of 264
5. Description of the Fishery
5.1 Unit of Certification and Scope of Certification Sought In compliance with section 27.4 in Part C of CR V1.3 January 2013, SCS confirms that the Southern Gulf of California thread herring fishery conforms to the scope elements defining eligibility for full assessment against the MSC standard. The fishery is not being conducted under a unilateral exemption to an international agreement (CR 27.4.4.1), nor does it use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives (CR 27.4.4.2). The fishery does not engage in shark finning, has mechanisms for resolving disputes (CR 27.4.5), and has not previously failed assessment or had a certificate withdrawn (CR 27.4.7). Other eligible fishers have been clearly identified (there are none) (CR 27.4.8), there are not IPI species (CR 27.4.9), the stock is not enhanced (CR 27.4.12) nor is the P1 species introduced (CR 27.4.14). The unit is overlapping with the scope of the Northern Gulf of California sardine and thread herring fishery based in Sonora State and harmonization issues will be addressed when scoring this fishery (27.4.13). Other units relevant to harmonization considerations are included in Section 4.1, as Units of Assessment that share P3 management in Mexican Federal waters.
The Unit of Assessment is made up of the target species, gear and location that define a fishery. The impacts of all vessels within the Unit of Assessment are considered and scored under Principle 2. The target species of the Unit is a thread herring stock complex (Opisthonema spp.), made up of three subspecies (O. libertate, O. medirastre and O. bulleri), or sardina crinuda and arenque de hebra in Spanish. The UoA covers purse seiner vessels subject to Mexican National Standard Number 003, which operate in the Mexican territorial waters of the states of Sinaloa and Nayarit, Mexico. At the moment only the ten vessels belonging to the client group Maz Sardina meet these characteristic. The Unit of Certification is made up of the species, gear and location of a fishery. Vessels that are within the Unit of Certification may represent all or only some of the vessels assessed in the UoA. Those vessels “covered by the certificate” are selected by client/certificate holder and allowed to use the blue MSC ecolabel. Where the UoA is larger than the UoC, there are other Eligible Fishers. In this Unit, the Unit of Assessment is the same size as the Unit of Certification and there are therefore currently no other Eligible Fisheries. Other vessels could later a) become part of the certificate or b) engage in later certificate sharing arrangements, via a Scope Extension. This process would require auditors to verify how rates of target or non-target species do or do not differ significantly between companies or sub fleets fishing in different regions, and to confirm whether interested parties have in place an observer program, as per vessels in the existing unit. Therefore any Scope Extension would require re-scoring of performance indicators affected by the inclusion of vessels with novel attributes relative to the Maz Sardina boats assessed in this report.
The unit of certification for the assessment was chosen based on the management procedures and comparable characteristics for the vessels belonging to the client group Table 3).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 15 of 264
Table 3. Unit of Assessment (UoA) and Unit of Certification (UoC)
UoA: Opisthonema spp. ( O. libertate, O. medirastre, O. bulleri) (Günther, 1867; Berry & Barrett, 1963; and Regan, 1904, respectively) Species UoA: Mexican territorial waters in the states of Sinaloa and Nayarit. Fishing occurs between 26° N at Geographic Punta Ahome near the northern border of the State of Sinaloa with Sonora and 20.5° N near Cabo Area Corrientes in the State of Jalisco. UoA: Gear Purse Seine Type Stock This assessment was conducted inferring that thread herring in the southern Gulf of California is part of a single UoA represented by a stock complex composed of three Opisthonema species, O. libertate, O. medirastre and O. bulleri. O. libertate has the widest range and dominates thread herring landings in the Sinaloa & Nayarit fishery, with O. bulleri as the least abundant species of the complex. In the neighboring unit of assessment from the Sonora small pelagics fishery, the Opisthonema complex is disproportionately dominated by O. libertate, with small amounts of O. bulleri and O. medirastre present. For this reason, this stock is managed largely for O. libertate, and for MSC assessment purposes, O. bulleri and O. medirastre are considered IPI species. Management The thread herring fishery in Sinaloa is under the regulations, measures and management plans Framework administered by relevant Mexican agencies under the National Fisheries Law (Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables; DOF 2007). Measures specific to the small pelagic purse seine fishery in the federal waters of the Pacific Ocean are outlined in Mexican National Standard 003 (Norma Oficial Mexicana Oficial Mexicana 003-PESC-1993). The National Fisheries Chart (Carta Nacional Pesquera, CNP) is a formal document summarizing the state of a large number of fisheries in Mexico, including the small pelagic fishery. The CNP also includes general provisions and recommendations that must be observed by fishers and authorities. A Fisheries Management Plan implemented in 2012 outlines the Harvest Strategy for the small pelagic fishery. Three government agencies are primarily responsible for the management of the Mexican Gulf of California small pelagic fishery. INAPESCA is the research arm of the fisheries management authority, CONAPESCA (Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca), and provides data used to make management decisions. CONAPESCA is responsible for creation and implementation of regulations related to permitting, harvest controls and closures. CONAPESCA is the administering entity of SAGARPA (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación), a unit of the Federal Executive Branch of the Government of Mexico, and the agency responsible for administering the fisheries and aquaculture legislation in Mexico. PROFEPA (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente), the federal agency responsible for environmental protection, is the enformecement agency operating under the legal framework of the General Law for Sustainable Fishing and Aquaculture (LGPAS) and the General Act of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA-1996) Currently the input controls for this fishery include: entry permit, gear restrictions, temporal closures and effort controls. The output controls are size limits, and a harvest control rule. Client Group Maz Sardina S.A. De C.V. Fishers in the The Unit of Certification includes the 10 vessels from the Maz Sardina S.A. De C.V. fleet licensed by UoC Mexico. The carrying capacity of the vessels in the fleet ranges from 150 to 250 metric tons (See List of Vessels in Appendix 6.1). Other Eligible Currently there are no other eligible fisheries. Fishers
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 16 of 264
5.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries
There is no evidence of enhancement in this fishery. All the thread herring species in this complex are native to the area fished, wild, and there is no aspect of enhancement to the species or habitat.
5.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) Thread herring are not an introduced species to the area under assessment.
5.2 Overview of the Fishery
5.2.1 Background on the History of the Fishery and the Client Group
Fisheries in the Gulf of California Fishing is considered the most important human activity in the Gulf of California, with a strong cultural component, social relevance and wide spectrum of challenges. Different fisheries take place in the region, from highly industrialized pelagic to coastal artisanal fisheries, each with particular catch and variability levels, conditions and number of fishers, economic and social impacts, magnitude of conflicts and management issues (Lluch-Cota et al. 2007).
The Gulf of California supports a number of fisheries, including various shrimp species (brown, Farfantepenaeus californiensis; white Litopenaeus vannamei; and blue L. stylirostris) which are the most important fishery in Mexico in terms of income and employment. Shrimp represents nearly 40% of the total national fish production value, with revenues of over US$132 million per season. The Gulf of California giant squid (Dosidicus gigas) fishery is also significant. Several species of large pelagic fish are also taken including tuna, billfishes and sharks. Artisanal fisheries catch numerous species of bony fishes, elasmobranchs, mollusks, and crustaceans. Coastal fisheries in this region comprise about 70 species, for an annual catch of nearly 200,000 MT.
History of the Thread Herring Fishery The catch of small pelagics represents around 30% of the total landings in Mexico, with more than 80% of the sardine harvest taking place in the Gulf of California. Although historically Pacific sardines (S. sagax) have accounted for the majority of the landings, thread herrings contribute significant amounts and constitute the second most important species for reduction to fishmeal in Mexico. In 2010 the value of the catch for small pelagics (mostly thread herring) in the southern Gulf of California, $71,348,000 Mexican pesos, represented only 2% of the total value for the state of Sinaloa. However, in volume, the thread herring landings accounted for 32% of the landings in the state and 15% nationwide (Jacob- Cervantes et al. 2013). Time-series data for the Sinaloan small pelagic fishery indicates that the fishery is currently in a phase where sardines are not present in the catch but have been historically, and under different environmental conditions: for the available time series, at their maximum, sardines have comprised a significant percentage of the total small pelagic catch in Sinaloa and Nayarit. Since sardines are a species that oscillates in the Southern small pelagic fishery it may be possible that these could rise
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 17 of 264
in abundance at some point such that they need to be considered for scoring purposes and could be added as a secondary target to the main thread herring complex that forms the base of the assessment.
The small pelagics fishery in the southern Gulf of California is dominated by thread herring which is a stock complex composed of three sub-species: Opistonema libertate, O. bulleri and O. mediraste. Although bocona sardine (Cetengraulis mysticetus) is also present in the catch, thread herring accounts for 70% of the landings in the region and because of its superior quality, it is preferred by the industry (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2013).
The history of thread herring landings ( Figure 1) shows a period of fluctuations between 1980 and 1991 when a high of 36,201 tons was landed. Catch reached a historic low of 2,945 tons in 1994 and then started a steady increasing trend. The highest landings were obtained in 2009 with 98,590 tons and 68, 075 tons recorded in 2013. Between 2010 and 2014, an average of approximately 68,000 tons of thread herring was landed in Mazatlan each year (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2013).
Effort in the fishery has increased by approximately three orders of magnitude between the catch records in 1972 (
Figure 1) and present day, with days/trip increasing from 14 in 1972 to >1600 in 2013.
Figure 1. Trends in landings (continuous line) and effort (dashed line) by days/trip in the fishery for thread herring in the southern Gulf of California, Mexico. From data in Jacobs-Cervantes et al., 2013.
A significant correlation has been found between thread herring catch and the increasing trend in temperature and other environmental variables. Overall, a combination of indices representing sea surface temperature, turbulence, and upwelling were used in a predictive model to identify the existence of an environmental trend in the last decade that could favor thread herring population in the
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 18 of 264
southern Gulf of California which appears evident in an upward CPUE trend (Vallarta-Zarate 2012; Vallarta-Zarate and Jacob-Cervantes 2014).
The Maz Sardina Fleet Maz Sardina S.A. De C.V. is a commercial fishing operation with 10 vessels, each with approximately 10 fishers onboard, landing in Mazatlán in the state of Sinaloa, Mexico. The fleet fishes primarily for thread herring (Opisthonema spp.) and sardine bocona (Cetengraulis mysticetus), as well as a composite of other small pelagic species that include: Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax caerulea), red-eye round herring (Etrumeus teres) and chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus). All vessels work within the Mexican EEZ using purse-seine gear. Maz Sardina is a subsidiary of Grupo PINSA, which also includes the Pesca Azteca tuna-fishing fleet, a sophisticated processing facility, cold storage area and marketing subsidiaries.
3.2.2 Fishing Area and Habitat The fishing grounds for the thread herring fishery are in Mexican territorial waters in the states of Sinaloa and Nayarit. Fishing occurs between 26° N at Punta Ahome near the northern border of the State of Sinaloa with Sonora and 20.5 N near Cabo Corrientes in the State of Jalisco (Figure 2). The waters off Sinaloa and Nayarit are part of the Gulf of California, a 1,130 km long semi-enclosed sea located between the mainland of Mexico and the Baja California peninsula, with marine depths ranging from less than 10 m in the north of a maximum of ~3,600 m (Lluch-Cota et al. 2007).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 19 of 264
Figure 2. Map of fishing grounds for the thread herring Fishery based in Mazatlan. Source: Jacob- Cervantes et al. 2015c
The Gulf of California is characterized by great seasonality in temperature, circulation, winds, upwelling, and productivity (Rosas-Cota 1977; Badan-Dangon et al. 1985; Robles and Marinone 1987; Va1dez- Holguin and Lara-Lara 1987; Bray 1988; Ripa and Marinone 1989; Alvarez-Borrego and Lara-Lara 1991; Paden et al. 1991; Cervantes-Duarte et al. 1993; Castro et al. 1994; Santamaria-del-Angel et al. 1994a, b; Lavin et al. 1995). The physical conditions and circulation in the Gulf of California, which includes two major gyre systems, provides an ideal combination of factors for larval survival, by aiding the retention of eggs and larvae in the highly productive central gulf region (Bray 1988; Marinone and Ripa 1988; Beier 1997).
The Gulf of California can generally be divided into two major regions: the northern region found north of Isla Angel de la Guarda and Isla Tiburon, the southern region found from these islands to the mouth of the Gulf with the Eastern Pacific Ocean and south to Jalisco. The northern portion of the Gulf is shallow, with tidal ranges up to 10 m and sea surface temperature from 10°C in winter to 32°C in summer (Figure 3). This area is characterized by higher nutrients due to strong tidal mixing and wind action (Robinson, 1973). The southern regions are deeper and connected with the Pacific Ocean, average temperatures in summer are over 25°C with winter averages at approximately 20°C (Valdez- Holguin et al., 1999).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 20 of 264
Figure 3. Bathymetry of the Gulf of California where shallow inshore areas are demarcated by pink, ranging through red, orange, yellow into deeper green and deepest blue areas. Taken from Geomap (http://clasticdetritus.com/2008/04/20/sea-floor-sunday-16-gulf-of-california/).
3.2.3 Fishery Management System All fisheries in Mexico are regulated by the national Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables (The Fisheries Law, DOF 2007). Measures specific to the small pelagic fishery are outlined in the Mexican National Standard, Norma Oficial Mexicana 003-PESC-1993, para regular el aprovechamiento de las especies de sardina, piña, crinuda, bocona, japonesa y de las especies anchoveta y macarela, con embarcaciones de cerco, en aguas de Jurisdicción Federal del Océano Pacífico, incluyendo el Golfo de California. The Carta Nacional Pesquera (CNP) is a formal document synthesizing the present state of a large number of fisheries in Mexico including the small pelagic fish. The CNP includes also general provisions and recommendations that must be observed by fishers and authorities. A Fisheries Management Plan has been recently implemented to outline the harvest strategy.
Three government agencies have the main roles in management of the Mexican Gulf of California small pelagic fishery. Data used to make management decisions are provided by INAPESCA, which is the research arm of the fisheries management authority, CONAPESCA. Decisions related to permitting, harvest controls, fishing vigilance, enforcement and closures are made and implemented by CONAPESCA. CONAPESCA is an administering entity of SAGARPA (Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food) which in turn is a unit of the Federal Executive Branch of the Government of Mexico, and the agency responsible for administering the fisheries and aquaculture
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 21 of 264
legislation in Mexico. PROFEPA is responsible for prosecuting enforcement and vigilance measures associated with resource and environmental protection.
5.3 Principle One: Target Species Background
5.3.1 Low Trophic Level Species (LTL) For the purposes of this evaluation, the Assessment Team worked under the assumption that thread herring in the southern Gulf of California is part of a single UoA represented by a stock complex composed of three Opisthonema species, O. libertate, O. medirastre and O. bulleri. For evaluation purposes and according to the modified tree (Appendix 1.1), each component of this complex is treated as a separate scoring element. Under this evaluation approach, the overall target reference points should be consistent with the intent of the PI and maintain the high productivity of the stock complex.
All three Opisthonema species are low trophic level (LTL) species but are not identified as key LTL under the definitions in MSC CRv1.3 CB2.3.13. Thread herring is included in the list of “key LTL stocks” as defined in Box CB1 of MSC CRv1.3, however, the species under assessment did not meet at least two of the sub-criteria under CB2.3.13a for key LTL stocks. In the Gulf of California ecosystem there are a number of other species at this trophic level through which energy is transmitted to higher trophic levels. Jacob et al. (2015) concludes that thread herring (Opisthonema spp.) species are not an important component in the diet of species in the southern Gulf of California ecosystem, with the exception of the blue footed booby (Sula nebouxii). Fish predators in this ecosystem were found to have a broad variety of prey to feed upon. Large pelagic fish including marlin and sailfish, which could be assumed to have a stronger dependency on small pelagic species, were found to have diet dominated by mollusks. Fish prey were second in importance and composed of about 20 different families among which different small pelagics species, including O. libertate, represented less than 1% of the diet. The diets of blue marlins and yellowfin tuna also showed low amounts of small pelagics, which included on few occasions
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 22 of 264
the South American pilchard (Sardinops sagax) and chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) but not Opisthonema spp.
Available diet data was reviewed for four shark species, two hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini and S. zygaena), silky sharks (Calcharhinus falciformis) and blue sharks (Pironace glauca). The main type of prey item found was Cephalopods, small pelagics represented less than 5% of the total food items in all four shark species. Cephalopods are considered a relevant species in the Gulf of California, and in particular in Sonora and northern Sinaloa, the Panama brief squid (Lolliguncula panamensis) feeds almost entirely on S. sagax, but there is no indication of presence of this species in southern Sinaloa. Another squid species mentioned for the Gulf of California was the Humboldt squid (Dosidiscus gigas) which feeds mostly on mictophids and crustaceans: small pelagics were not important of its diet (Jacobs-Cervantes et al., 2015)
Thread herring was not found to be an important component of the diet of marine mammals in the Gulf of California, including California sea lions, the spotted and the spinner dolphins, which are common in Sinaloa No information was found on the bottlenose dolphin but it is well known to be an opportunistic feeder that can prey on fish, crustaceans or squids (Wells and Scott 2002).
Limited evidence was provided regarding energy flow in the southern Gulf of California. One analysis of this type was focused on the benthic influence of the shrimp trawl fishery which may not be relevant to the pelagic ecosystem of the thread herring. The analysis by Hernandez-Padilla et al (2015) found that removals of thread herring are reflected in the ecosystem order maintenance, whereas removal of bocona relates to ecosystem decay. Although the authors suggest that their results should be considered to develop precautionary harvest strategies, they do not specify how the results could be used to this end and explicitly indicate that such results are only descriptive in terms of the functional role of the thread herring and bocona in the ecosystem, but can’t contribute to establish permissible harvest rates.
5.3.2 Species The fishery for thread herring operates under the assumption that the group is made up of three different species, O. libertate, O. bulleri, and O. medirastre. In practice however, these species are difficult to distinguish in the field by means of immediate identification of external characteristics such as size, shape, color, fin features, etc. To assign individuals to either one of the proposed species it is necessary to count the number of gill rakers (Jacob-Cervantes et al., 2013), which is not practical during commercial operations.
The MSC system has a mechanism that allows for Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) species to be assessed together, if and when one species comprises <15% of the total overall landing of a fishery in which there is a target species from which it cannot be distinguished for commercial purposes (V1.3, CR 27.4.9.1 c). In this case, none of the species qualified as IPI: when the catch history was examined through time, each species regularly comprised >15% of total landings in different years (Figure 5).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 23 of 264
Opisthonema libertate Pacific thread herring (Opisthonema libertate) is part of the main target species complex in the southern Gulf of California small pelagics fishery, and generally dominates the stock complex, ranging from >70 to <30% of the total thread herring landings, depending on year (Figure 5). Thread-fin herring are named for the last thread-like ray on their dorsal fins. Other common names include deep-bodied thread herring and sardina crinuda (Mexico). O. libertate is distinguishable from other Pacific ocean Opisthonema spp. only by the number of gill rakers, with O. libertate having between 63 and 100.
Opisthonema bulleri Like other members of the genus Opisthonema, O. bulleri is distinguished by the long filamentous ray on the dorsal fin and may be very difficult to differentiate from other Opisthonema species. This species is about the same size, and presents the same number of rays in the dorsal and anal fins as other species of the same genus. The most distinctive feature of this species is the presence of 25 to 36 lower gill rakers in individuals over 14 cm, which is the lowest number of gill rakers found among Opisthonema species.
Opisthonema medirastre This species is very similar in size and morphology to the other two members of the genus described above. The distinctive feature is the presence of 41 to 69 lower gill rakers in fish over 14 cm which places the species between O. libertate and O. bulleri in the number of distinctive gill rakers. This is generally the least abundant species of the complex in Sinaloa & Nayarit waters: it has comprised >60% and <5% of the total thread herring landings in the complex, depending on the year (Figure 5).
5.3.3 Distribution The Pacific thread herring O. libertate is distributed along the eastern Pacific coast extending from the Gulf of California northward to Southern California, USA, and southward to Peru, including the Galapagos Islands. This species is abundant throughout most of its range, with the exception of the outer coast of Baja California, where it is considered to be rare (Watson and Sandknop, 1996). O. medirastre is distributed from Los Angeles, USA to Sechura Bay in Peru. O. bulleri is found in coastal/pelagic waters of the eastern Pacific, from Mazatlán, Mexico to Punta Picos in Peru, this is the least abundant of the three Opisthonema species (Berry and Barret 1963).
5.3.4 Life History Pacific thread herring are small forage fish (usually ~12-25 cm in length, up to ~30 cm). While predominantly coastal and preferring to remain near the surface, they have been known to occur as deep as 100 meters.
Pacific thread herring are low level consumers and form very dense schools that attain large biomasses between 50 and 80 metric tons, and are therefore usually restricted to high productivity areas. The Pacific thread herring is omnivorous, consuming both phytoplankton and zooplankton throughout its
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 24 of 264
lifetime. Pacific thread herring is an indeterminate batch spawner (oviparous), producing a large number of eggs in batches spread over many months. The eggs and larvae are pelagic (free floating).
In the waters off Sinaloa, O. libertate spawns at a water temperature range from 25 to 29°C, mostly in the summer-autumn months with a high incidence of immature animals in winter. Different values of length at maturity (퐿50) have been computed for this thread herring species, but the latest approach estimated a mean length (no specification of what type of length measurement) at maturity of 162 mm (Cotero-Altamirano et al., 2014a).
The species O. medirastre shows reproductive behavior most of the year with a peak in September and weaker pulses in January and April. Temperatures above 20°C trigger the reproductive activity, becoming more intense at 31.5°C. The estimated mean length at maturity (퐿50) is 143 mm (Cotero- Altamirano et al., 2014b).
Although spawning takes place in spring, O. bulleri is a species that mostly spawns in the summer in the region of the southern Gulf of California. The estimated mean length at maturity (퐿50) is 151 mm (Cotero-Altamirano et al., 2014c).
Estimates for natural mortality for O. libertate are inconsistent across different publications. Gallardo- Cabello et al. (1993) mention that the maximum age for O. libertate is 8.94 years and the natural mortality (M) of 0.335. Jacob-Cervantes (2012), using the constant method of Jensen (1996), computed M = 0.65. These values differ from the high value of M= 0.86 published in Fishbase, these variations are most likely due to different values in K. Using the regression approach of Hewitt and Hoenig (2005) with the maximum age of 8.94 gives a M = 0.47, if age was reduced to 7 years, M = 0.6. Uncertainty in somatic growth rate and longevity are the main impediments to obtain a consistent estimate of natural mortality for this species.
5.3.5 Landings The history of thread herring landings (Figure 4) shows a period of fluctuations between 1980 and 1990, with a high catch of 31,971 metric tons recorded in 1990. Landings reached a historic low of 2,945 mt in 1994 and then started a steady increasing trend. The highest landings were 98,590 mt obtained in 2009 and in 2014 landings were 61,456 mt. From 2010 to 2014 an approximate average of 68,200 tons of thread herring was landed in Mazatlan (Jacob-Cervantes et al., 2013; Jacob-Cervantes 2015). Effort in this fishery has increased almost steadily between the first catch record in 1972 (Table 4;Figure 4) to present day, with fishing days increasing from 14 in 1972 to 1,285 in 2014, with a maximum of 1683 days in 2012.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 25 of 264
120000
100000
80000
60000 mt
40000
20000
0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Years
Figure 4. Landings of thread herring from 1972 to 2014 in the Unit of Assessment. Data from Jacob- Cervantes et al. (2013); Jacob-Cervantes (2015).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 26 of 264
Table 4. Catch history in metric tons and nominal effort of small pelagic fish in the southern Gulf of California. Data from Jacob-Cervantes et al. (2013); Jacob-Cervantes (2015).
Year Catch of thread Total catch Nominal herring effort (days) 1972 831 1,818 14 1973 4,239 5,592 79 1974 6,259 6,402 74 1975 6,904 7,071 76 1976 8,766 9,326 97 1977 3,344 4,874 64 1978 3,049 5,189 85 1979 8,386 8,811 150 1980 6,421 7,714 108 1981 3,502 5,405 79 1982 14,755 33,083 242 1983 6,099 25,520 138 1984 9,303 13,301 160 1985 13,069 25,323 198 1986 9,401 27,164 344 1987 10,023 13,935 182 1988 7,776 14,491 215 1989 19,243 46,950 480 1990 31,971 54,671 739 1991 36,201 45,017 822 1992 12,803 13,259 434 1993 10,359 10,557 321 1994 2,945 3,340 79 1995 11,464 12,004 223 1996 20,041 28,795 739 1997 23,165 52,877 755 1998 13,010 35,342 559 1999 20,503 45,430 578 2000 15,987 64,345 704 2001 15,907 54,928 511 2002 14,640 62,881 617 2003 33,815 42,436 640 2004 49,857 54,935 784 2005 55,588 60,197 790 2006 66,611 81,059 885 2007 76,218 81,224 884 2008 70,223 87,314 924 2009 98,590 105,521 1,214 2010 74,212 81,622 1,277 2011 78,515 110,870 1,228 2012 58,729 133,302 1,683 2013 68,075 88,901 1,208 2014 61,456 63,554 1,285
The contribution of each Opisthonema species in time has varied considerably although a predominance of O. libertate is clear in the time series below (Figure 5) as it commonly represents more than 50% of
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 27 of 264
the total thread herring catch. On average O. bulleri has been the second most important species, although in the last five years O. medirastre has been more abundantly caught than O. bulleri (Figure 5). The catch of O. libertate reached a maximum of over 60,000 t in 2011 but declined since to the lowest in 10 years with nearly 26,000 tons in 2014. The catch of O. medirastre reached a maximum of nearly 23,500 tons in 2012 and remains high with over 22,000 tons in 2014. The catch of O. bulleri was relatively greater from 2003 to 2009, and reached a maximum of more than 34,000 tons in 2007 (Figure 6).
Figure 5. Proportional contribution of each Opisthonema species to the total catch of thread herring. Proportions are based on samples taken from the commercial fishery every year. Reproduced from Jacob- Cervantes (2015).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 28 of 264
Figure 6. Catch in tons of thread herring per species in the Southern Gulf of California estimated from proportions obtained in samples of the commercial catch. From data in Jacob-Cervantes (2015).
5.3.6 Stock Assessment and Status of the Fishery Several assessments have been conducted to estimate both biomass abundance and maximum sustainable yield. An early compilation reproduced below from the work of Lyle-Fritch and Ruiz-Luna (1997) compares the estimates of MSY based on different analytical approaches. These estimates were obtained using data from the early stages of the fishery and probably for this reason, most of them are very low compared to current estimates. Also, it is notable that the estimates were obtained using production models and the length based Jones method. The latter is well known to be unreliable whereas the former may be subject to biases if the indices of abundance used were not informative enough, if they were not properly standardized or if alternative scenarios were not explored. The most conservative estimate of the BAC obtained using results from the VPA is 72,714 tons (Jacob-Cervantes 2012); whereas the most optimistic based on biomass from acoustic surveys are 81,814 and 114,077 ton (Jacob-Cervantes 2015). These BAC values are much higher compared to estimates of MSY obtained with a variety of approaches as shown in Table 5.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 29 of 264
Table 5. Maximum Sustainable Yield calculated by different models and authors for thread herring landed in the port of Mazatlan. Reproduced from Lyle-Fritch and Ruiz-Luna (1997).
These issues were later identified and an alternative approach was attempted by means of a Bayesian multispecies surplus production model (Jacob-Cervantes and Cisneros-Mata 2015). Although biomass trends and the corresponding estimated biomass has not been consistent, there has been general agreement that a combination of environmental conditions and low catch rate has led to a virtually insignificant effect of the fishery on the stock (Lyle-Fritch and Ruiz-Luna, 1997).
The National Fisheries Institute of Mexico has conducted two main assessments of the fishery and the status of the thread herring complex in the southern Gulf of California. The first approach was applied to the thread herring complex, pooling all species together. This assessment used a VPA with the catch time series running from 1972 to 2008. This evaluation on the history and current status of the stock was conducted by Jacob-Cervantes (2012) using regular VPA under an assumption of natural mortality (M=0.65), considerably different from the assumption of M=1.13 by Nevárez-Martínez et al. (2012; 2014). There was no test of sensitivity or discussion included in these analyses about the potential impact of alternative assumptions. The assessment of Jacob-Cervantes (2012) showed that the trajectory in fishing mortality oscillated regularly until 2004 where it increased and remained high. The trend oscillates around an approximate average of 0.15 but increases to 0.25 or above in the latest years. The reliability of such estimates was unknown since there was no discussion on model assumptions, alternative scenarios were not considered and measures of uncertainty were missing. Additionally, there was a relevant uncertainty in the approach because stock status was estimated for the whole complex and there was no indication of what level of impact the harvest rate was having on individual species, particularly the least abundant.
The results of the assessment by Jacob-Cervantes (2012) showed that the fitted stock recruitment models were close to linear with little signs of density-dependent effects. This was interpreted as evidence of the potential influence of environmental effects as limiting factors to recruitment in
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 30 of 264
addition to the size of the parental stock. This observation is relevant because the biomass trajectory reconstructed by the VPA shows an increment in time from less than 100,000 tons of total biomass to a maximum of 600,000 tons in season 07/08 (Figure 7). The conclusion of Jacob-Cervantes (2012) was that reproductive success was associated with environmental factors such as surface temperature, upwelling and turbulence. These results were revisited by Vallarta-Zarate and Jacob-Cervantes (2014) who confirmed the role of environmental variables and concluded that conditions in the last decade favored thread herring abundance and availability. Recruit biomass was estimated to be 302,856 tons in season 07/08 (Jacob-Cervantes 2012), while recorded total catch for 2007/08 for thread herring was around 146,000 tons (Jacob-Cervantes et al., 2013; Jacob-Cervantes 2015). The obvious consequence of the reconstructed biomass trajectory in the VPA approach is that, given the recorded catch, the fishery has had virtually no effect on the stock because recruitment under favorable environmental conditions exceeds the fishery removals.
Figure 7. Estimated biomass (BT), adult biomass (Bd) and recruit biomass (Br) of thread herring in the southern Gulf of California from season 71/72 through 08/09. Reproduced from Jacob-Cervantes (2012).
Partly different results were obtained using a Bayesian multispecies aggregated biomass dynamics model, which separated the catch by species. Along with estimating parameters for each species, this approach has the advantage that posterior probability distributions allow for the investigation and formal incorporation of uncertainty from observation errors (Jacobs-Cervantes and Cisneros-Mata 2015). Results from the multispecies model are summarized in Table 5. It is notable that the sum of estimated abundances for all three thread herring species is about twice (over 1.2 million tons) the estimated abundance in the VPA model. The trajectory of every thread herring species is also different from the trajectory for the whole complex in the VPA approach. In the multispecies model, virtually all species show some level of fluctuation but remain at about the same level abundance from the beginning of the series to the end (See remaining biomass in Figure 8 and
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 31 of 264
Table 3). Fluctuations in the trajectories for O. medirastre and O. bulleri appear exaggerated because the Y axes do not begin at zero. Although the report doesn’t discuss these differences, it is worth observing that under all analytic instances, the catch history was not large enough to cause a decline. The catch in the multispecies model is in all cases well under the estimated MSY, although the catch of bocona in 2012 exceeded the estimate of MSY.
Table 6. Biomass in year 2012 (푩ퟐퟎퟏퟐ), unfished abundance (K), and percent biomass remaining (푩풓), maximum sustainable yield (MSY), and fishing mortality rate producing the MSY (푭푴푺풀 ) of small pelagic species in the southern Gulf of California. From data in Jacob-Cervantes and Cisneros-Mata (2015).
퐁퐫 Species 퐁ퟐퟎퟏퟐ 퐊 (% 퐫퐞퐦퐚퐢퐧퐢퐧퐠 퐌퐒퐘 퐅퐌퐒퐘 퐛퐢퐨퐦퐚퐬퐬) O. libertate 425,640 500,000 85.13 137,500 0.55 O. medirastre 526,540 532,659 98.85 215,280 0.81 O. bulleri 338,551 350,810 96.51 144,907 0.83 C. mysticetus 366,481 374,390 97.89 60,717 0.32
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 32 of 264
Figure 8. Biomass and catch of the three thread herring species and the bocona sardine in the southern Gulf of California from 1972 through 2012. Reproduced from Jacob-Cervantes and Cisneros-Mata (2015).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 33 of 264
Results regarding the status of the stock and the fishery reflected in Kobe plots are presented in Figure 9. It is evident that biomass has been in all cases above the level producing MSY, and the annual fishing mortality rate has also always been far below the level producing MSY. The exception is the bocona sardine, for which even though fishing mortality rates always were far under the level producing MSY there are some years that biomass was under the estimated level producing MSY. Since 퐵푀푆푌 is a function of K, this situation may be a reflection of a temporal shift in K.
Figure 9. Kobe plots for A) O. libertate; B) O. medirastre; C) O. bulleri and D) C. mysticetus, Notice that Bocona (D) includes years in which biomass was under 푩푴푺풀, even when F was always well below 푭푴푺풀, reflecting a possible change in K.
5.3.7 General Administration, Management and Regulations The Fisheries Law (Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables, LGPAS) (2007, as amended in 2014) is the main legislative document governing the conservation, preservation, and management of all aquatic flora and fauna under exploitation in Mexico. Additionally, the National Fisheries Charter (Carta Nacional Pesquera, CNP) provides overarching legislation for all fisheries in Mexico and undergoes a process of periodic review with the potential to enact or modify conditions and regulations on fisheries. Mexico uses a series of Official Mexican Standards (Norma Oficial Mexicana, often called NOMs or normas) which are compulsory standards and regulations for diverse activities in Mexico. (Hernandez and Kempton 2003). The small pelagic fishery is a subset of fisheries in Mexico regulated by the NOM-
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 34 of 264
003-PESC-1993 which specifies a series of input and output controls. Both the NOM and the CNP have binding value under the national fisheries law, although the CNP is only binding for the authorities, not the fishers. All fisheries official regulations are published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación, the Federation Official Gazette. In addition the LGPAS dictates that Fisheries Management Plans (FMP) are one of the three instruments for fisheries management recognized by the law in Mexico. However, the full scope of FMPs is reached only when they are embedded in another of the three instruments known as the Programa de Ordenamiento Pesquero. For the small pelagic fishery (sardines, anchovies, mackerel and related species) an official (published in the Official Gazette) FMP outlines the harvest strategy for all small pelagics in the Mexican Pacific region.
Carta Nacional Pesquera The 2012 National Fisheries Charter (CNP) refers to NOM-003-PESC in determining 160 mm as the minimum standard length for thread herring (as a complex). For thread herring there is no defined maximum proportion of fish in the catch under the size limit. For Pacific sardines the proportional volume of fish under the size limit is set at 30% of the total catch. It is assumed that this proportion also applies for all small pelagics with a size limit.
The CNP recommends exploitation rates of 0.25 for all small pelagics, and limits fishing effort in terms of nominal trips by not granting more commercial fishing permits for small pelagics, unless they are to substitute for vessels currently permitted. The CNP also recommends prohibiting the movement of fleets from one zone to another (e.g. from the Pacific coast of Baja California to the Gulf of California).
NOM-003-PESC-1993 The NOM 003-PESC-1993 defines minimum size limits for several species including thread herring (Opisthonema spp.), setting the minimum standard length at 160 mm. The NOM also indicates that effort cannot be increased north of 20°N.
A revision of NOM-003 has already been published in the Official Gazette as a formal proposal to modify the NOM, has undergone open public comment and is in the process of being accepted. The main proposed changes include:
. Size limits determined through a dynamic process by fishing zones and according to the specifics of a species or stock dynamics. . Restrictions for the fleets requiring them to operate exclusively within one of 5 areas determined by their port base. (The southern Gulf of California is included in area 4, which would have a maximum of 12 vessels allowed.) . Potential for increase in effort temporarily by region if a Technical Opinion by INAPESCA indicates the biological availability.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 35 of 264
Small Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan The main objectives of the Management Plan are to keep stocks at sustainable levels, conserve yield and economic benefit, reduce impacts to the ecosystem, and stimulate economic benefit to society. The Management Plan includes objectives, reference points, control rules, definition of a scientific support committee and research objectives.
The Plan also details that some species are to be actively managed if a control rule is used as described below, while others will be passively managed if default harvest rates are used. The purpose of these two categories of management is to use institutional resources as efficiently and effectively as possible to meet management goals. Species in each group are given in Table 7.
Table 7. Actively versus passively managed small pelagics. Small pelagic species categorized for two main forms of management in the November 2012 Fisheries Management Plan for Small Pelagics in the Gulf of California Mexico.
Actively Managed Passively managed Pacific sardine: Sardinops sagax Japanese sardine: Etrumeus teres Blue thread herring: Opisthonema bulleri Bocona sardine: Cetengraulis mysticetus Middling thread herring: Opisthonema medirastre Northern anchovy: Engraulis mordax Pacific thread herring: Opisthonema libertate Charrito: Trachurus symmetricus Chub mackerel: Scomber japonicas Pineapple sardine: Oligoplites. spp.
5.3.8 Reference Points and Harvest Control Rule In the Small Pelagics Management Plan a relevant insertion is the definition of guidance to establish reference points. Under this management strategy the concepts of Optimum Yield (OY) and Biologically Acceptable Catch (BAC) are introduced. The Management Plan doesn’t explicitly identify target or limit reference points, however, the OY is interpreted as the desirable level of operation for the fishery, which defines a TRP. Because the OY is defined as a quantity smaller than the BAC, then the BAC must be understood as a LRP. These reference points are required to be consistent with MSY because the strategy is expected to provide biomass levels at least as high as the 퐹푀푆푌 approach while maintaining relatively high and consistent catch. The FMP however defines that the BAC is defined as a quantity that is consistent with MSY, but being a LRP determines a conservative management approach (Error! eference source not found.).
Biologically Acceptable Catch (BAC) - Limit Reference Point Analogue
Operationally, the BAC is a catch limit computed by means of multiplying a biomass estimate times a harvest rate. Also, because in practice a harvest rate (HR) is the ratio of catch over biomass, the HR used to compute the BAC can be used as surrogate reference point and evaluate the performance of the fishery every season (i.e. comparing the recorded HR of the season vs the BAC based HR). In the CNP, for
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 36 of 264
the small pelagics fishery, a default value of the HR reference point was set to 0.25. This value was obtained from a simulation study of Pacific sardine which indicated that a fishing mortality rate that is 90% of the 퐹푚푠푦 “would not only produce higher economic returns and be safer biologically, but would also reduce intrinsic population oscillations, which for management purposes is a desirable characteristic of an exploitable resource” (Nevárez-Martínez et al., 1999).
The default value of 0.25 was transferred to the FMP and set as an upper allowable limit for the proportion of the estimated biomass that could be removed by the fishery (i.e. a harvest rate). The Plan states that the BAC is a “prudent level of catch” that can vary between 5 and 25% of the estimated biomass. This value is also used in the FMP as a default HR for passively managed species and is multiplied to the estimated biomass of reproductive adults. According to the FMP, overfishing occurs if the catch of any particular season exceeds the BAC.
Optimum Yield (OY) - Target Reference Point Analogue
OY is defined as the amount of fish that provides the greatest benefit to the nation, particularly with regard to food production and jobs, and takes into account the protection of the marine ecosystem; and is prescribed based on the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). OY is determined in reference to the Biologically Acceptable Catch (BAC). OY is required to be less than the BAC to avoid overfishing. Such language suggests OY as desirable state of the system which would define a target reference point.
Under the definitions of the Management Plan species including thread herring, chub mackerel and the Pacific sardine (Table 6) are subject to active management. For species that are “actively managed” the Plan has added an MSY-based control rule that, based on the application of a harvest rate, requires catch reductions if the biomass declines. Additionally, the control rule has inserted a biomass safety minimum such that if reached, the fishery would stop operating. In this control rule, the BAC is equivalent to C:
C = (B-Bmin) * FRACTION
Where: C is the target catch level, B is generally estimated biomass of fish age 1 and older, Bmin is the lowest level of estimated biomass at which the directed harvest is allowed set at a point where sufficient spawning biomass is left in the system to assure rebuilding. FRACTION is the proportion of biomass above Bmin that can be captured by the fishery. FRACTION needs to be based on a true harvest rate rather than 퐹푀푆푌 and the FMP states that if it is “approximately equal” to 퐹푀푆푌 then the control rule would be consistent with MSY. To be consistent, with preceding statements in the management plan, FRACTION would have to work as a limit defined in the form of BAC and the OY would still need to be explicitly specified. The management plan indicates that to obtain Bmin, different sources of information can be used, including catch and fishery data (catch and effort, sizes, ages and weights) as well as fishery independent data (census of eggs and larvae, hydroacoustic data etc.).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 37 of 264
Table 8. Conceptual correspondence among different definitions of target and limit reference points.
MSC Mexico Fisheries Management Plan Reference Defintion Value Indicator Value* point Similar in intent or The point which outcome to maintain the corresponds to a stock at Bmsy or above. Optimum yield state of a fishery Can use proxy e.g. Fmsy. (OY) Fraction of BAC Target and/or resource Consideration of S-R; OY≤ BAC which is Potential impacts on Rendimiento considered reproduction capacity; Optimo (RO) desirable genetic capacity or sex composition. The point beyond Biologically which the state of Acceptable catch a fishery and/or a BAC/C = (B-Bmin) (BAC) Limit resource is not Default: 0.5 Bmsy * FRACTION Captura considered Biológicamente desirable Aceptable (CBA)
* For actively managed species
Reference Points and Biologically Acceptable Catch for Thread Herring:
The Management Plan doesn’t explicitly indicate whether reference points, control rules or other specifications apply to the whole small pelagics fishery or to each species separately. The definition of the management unit is established as the whole set of species of small pelagic fish. However, within the plan the status of individual stocks of different species are considered toward the goal to “conserve stocks at sustainable levels by controlling the fishing effort that could be applied to the fishery.” Such language is indicative of intent to apply the elements of the plan to individual stocks
The Reference Points and HCR previously described were calculated for the thread herring complex, pooling all three species together. FRACTION for thread herring complex was set to the 25% default value, based on Pacific sardine biology. Bmin for the thread herring in the southern Gulf of California was estimated at 12,000 tons using a stock-recruitment analysis to determine the level of potential allee effects (Jacob-Cervantes 2015). Depending on the abundance value that is used, the BAC for the thread herring stock complex in the southern Gulf of California ranges from nearly 72,000 to about 114,000 tons (Jacob-Cervantes 2015). INAPESCA is, however, recommending the use of the lowest value in this range (Error! Reference source not found.Table 9 ).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 38 of 264
Table 9. Biomass estimates and reference points for the thread herring stock complex and individual species in the sourthern Gulf of California Mexico.
Biomass C (Target Landings Year Biomass Bmin FRACTION MSY ( ≥ 1 yr) Catch Level) for year 2007/08* (stock complex) 302,856 t 72,714 t
2012** (stock complex) 678,518 t 339,259 t 12,000 t 25% 81,814 t 58,729 t
2012** (stock complex) 936,616 t 468,308 t 114,077 58,729 t 137,500 2012*** (O. libertate) 425,640 58,729 t 215,280 2012*** (O. medirastre) 526,540 58,729 t
144,907 2012*** (O. bulleri) 338,551 58,729 t
*VPA model (Jacob-Cervantes 2012) **Hydroacoustics (Nevárez et al. 2013) *** Multispecies model (Jacob-Cervantes and Cisneros-Mata 2015)
Emergent actions and other components of the harvest strategy If overfishing occurs, the Plan defines “emergent actions” that are implemented “if pertinent and possible”. These actions include: a) temporal or area closures applied to one or more species; b) change in the size limits or definition of new limits for one or more species in a single area or more; c) definition or change of allowable catch and d) restrictions on fishing effort.
The research program anticipates that monitoring will continue on all landing ports. Other areas of interest for the scientific program are the periodic biomass evaluations; meta-population dynamics; environmental impacts and interactions; ecosystem approach; international cooperation; predictive models; exploratory and experimental fishing; economics and market studies.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 39 of 264
Fisheries Independent monitoring Fisheries independent data are being collected for the entire Gulf of California via hydroacoustic surveys which began in 2008: findings were summarized for the period between 2008 and 2012 (Nevarez- Martinez et al., 2012). The work included five acoustic surveys carried out in the Gulf of California during the month of May for the years of 2008-2012 aboard the research vessel "BIP XI.” The survey itinerary was the same in all years where on the coasts of Sonora (Bahia de Puerto Obos Agiobamp) perpendicular transects were made up to the 200m isobath and every 10 nm (mn). In the western Gulf, zigzag transects were done from Isla Angel de la Guarda to Loreto, BCS. Results indicate that there is high variability in the biomass of Pacific (Pacific) Sardine, but also that biomass estimates differed depending on how the target strength (TS) of the signal was interpreted: interpretation and selection of appropriate target strength models is known to be a sensitivity that needs attention in hydroacoustic surveys (Demer, 2004). Findings indicate that in a relative sense there was a general biomass decrease from 2008 to 2010 and a slight increase in the last two years. This trend is generally consistent with the abundance trend obtained through stock assessment modeling (Nevárez-Martinez et al. 2012).
For the coast of Sinaloa acoustic data was obtained in 2012 in a survey conducted along the coasts of Sinaloa and Nayarit from Topolobampo to San Blas (Figure 10). Zig-zag transects, perpendicular to the coast extended when possible offshore until the 200 m isobath. The survey also included net tows to verify the species composition of detected echoes. In 2012 total thread herring biomass was estimated to be in the range of 678,518 and 936,616 mt (Nevarez-Martinez et al 2013). In the tows, species other than thread herring were captured including bocona sardine, anchovies, and other small pelagic species (Figure 11). There were no records of Pacific sardine. In 2014, a comparable acoustic survey in design estimated total thread herring biomass ranged from 606,472 to 837,166 mt (Gonzalez-Maynez et al. 2015).
Figure 10. Track line of the acoustic survey of small pelagic fish along the coast of Sinaloa and Nayarit during September 2012. Image reproduced from Nevárez-Martínez et al. (2012).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 40 of 264
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 of 264
Figure 11. Location of sets with positive catch and species recorded in the tows during the acoustic surveys off the coast of Sinaloa and Nayarit in 2012 (In blue thread herring; green for anchovy; yellow for mojarra; cyan for orqueta and black for other) (upper panel) and 2014 (lower two panels, northern portion left, southern portion right). Reproduced from Nevárez-Martínez et al. (2012) and Gonzalez- Maynez et al. (2015).
INAPESCA has identified that it will be necessary to continue working on refining methods to assign the overall acoustic energy to the different species in order to generate more reliable estimates of abundance. The following are specific priorities for improving fisheries independent surveys of small pelagics: . Individual measurements of TS on each haul made in situ with double-beam echo sounders . Measurements of TS in situ and experimental effects on concentrations of sardines (and other small pelagics) across a range of sizes frequencies, as well as physiological conditions of the resource. . Potential discrimination of species based on size at different regions, sampling to count gill rakers, and link these data to the acoustic based densities. The intent should be to produce estimates of abundance for individual Opistonema species. . Improve on the assumption about b20.
An inconsistency was observed in estimated biomass for 2012 and 2014 which under the assumption that the B20 parameter equals -70.5 led to estimates of 936,616 and 606,472, but biomass in 2014 should be larger given larger average weight.
Species actively managed: thread herring The Management Plan categorizes thread herring as actively managed species, therefore subject to the application of a control rule to compute the allowable catch. The rule is based on a harvest rate expected to keep the population above a level producing MSY. A minimum biomass threshold functions as an additional mechanism to the control rule, protecting the stock when biomass is low. This is consistent with MSC requirements and overall is considered a precautionary practice because these types of control rules are responsive to the state of the stock.
The language in the Management Plan regarding the harvest rate in the control rule can be interpreted to be working as a “Limit Reference Point” (LRP), which is used to compute the so-called Biologically Acceptable Catch (BAC). In practice, the value used as a reference point to evaluate the performance of the fishery is not the harvest rate but the fishing mortality producing MSY, or more precisely the F value that was computed for Pacific sardines that is slightly under퐹푀푆푌. The Management Plan defines the “Optimum Yield” as a catch smaller than the BAC, which would by definition function as the desirable state of the system, or a Target Reference Point (TRP). However, the optimum yield has not been explicitly defined beyond a quantity that is smaller than the BAC. Nonetheless, two aspects are important to note. First, the control rule is based on a reference point that is in intent consistent with MSY and is interpreted as a LRP, whereas MSC requirements state that the TRP needs to be consistent
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 42 of 264
with MSY. In this regard, the control rule for small pelagics in Mexico is more precautionary than the MSC standard. Unfortunately, the value used as reference point is based on an analysis of fishing mortality for the Pacific sardine under assumptions that may not apply for thread herring given differences in biological characteristics between the two species. This needs to be revised and assumptions must be tested.
5.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background
5.4.1 The Observer Program In 2012 the main fleet in the Southern Gulf of California, Maz Sardina SA de CV, in collaboration with INAPESCA, started the Onboard Observers Program for the Small Pelagics Fishery in the Southern Gulf of California to record interactions between the Sinaloan small pelagic fishery and components of the ecosystem. The work was part of the Lower Pelagic Program led by CRIP-Mazatlan INAPESCA and the National Small Pelagics Program of INAPESCA, SAGARPA. The first onboard observer season expanded from April 2012 to April 2013. A total of 83 (6%) fishing trips, encompassing a total of 290 sets, from a total of 1262 trips for the whole fleet included an observer onboard, reporting environmental information in time and space as well as all fauna encountered in five main categories to the species level: fish, birds, mammals, turtles and crustaceans. All observed trips were made on board a single commercial vessel owned by Maz Sardina SA de DV, using a vessel with 280mt hold capacity and a net 380 fathoms long with a 30 fathom fall. Trips were undertaken fishing from Punta Ahome, Sinaloa to Banderas Bay, Jalisco. The second season of the onboard observer program took place from May 2013 to March 2014 and covered 65 trips on a single vessel, encompassing a total of 14.2% out of the 458 trips of the fleet. The observed trips for the second season were made on board a second commercial vessel from Maz Sardina SA de DV that had the same net dimensions as the vessel used in the first season, but a slightly smaller hold capacity of 192 mt. There is the stated intent by INAPESCA to expand the observer program for the region and to put in place a stable program: funding and binding agreements for this work are not yet present.
It is unknown whether these first surveys had coverage with sufficient samples and stratification, to generate a comprehensive understanding of the fleet’s interactions and their impacts. In all observer programs there can be challenges associated with boats modifying fishing behavior in the presence of observers.
The client should also be aware that at the second annual sardine surveillance audit in Sonora, SCS was notified that COBI was exploring the potential for onboard electronic monitoring systems.
Within the 83 observed trips in the 2012-2013 season 38 sets (13%) exercised discarding of target species. In sets were discarding occurred, 72% of the times was due to undersized catch, and the remaining because hulls were already full and excess capacity could not be transferred to another vessel.) In the 2014 season out of the 210 total sets, 16 sets (7.6%) exercised discarding, either because the sizes were too small or because they were not a targeted species (Table 3).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 43 of 264
5.4.2 Overview of Non-target Catch A total of 60 non-target species (fishes, elasmobranchs, and crustaceans) were recorded in all observed sets in 2013-2014. Of these, 95% of all catch was retained, and 5% (3719 mt) was discarded as bycatch. Species quantified by individual number (turtles, dolphins, whales, sea lions) were not included in these tallies: only species captured by weight.
Table 10. Summary of Non-target Species as Categorized for Evaluation. Categorization of all non-target species encountered by the Southern Gulf of California small pelagic fishery. Main retained species (MSC) used in scoring are given below along with the main reason for including these species as “main” in assessment, and their categorization relative to listing processes used to classify species as ETP in the MSC system.
Performance Common Scientific MSC Reason for NOM CITES/Other Indicators name name Classification classification 059 2.1.x bocona Cetengraulis Main retained >5% of No No mysticetus landed volume (5.7%) 2.1.x spotted Aetobatus Main retained Vulnerable No No eagle ray narinari life history 2.1.x devil ray Mobula Main retained Vulnerable No NOM 029 japonica life history 2.2.x Pacific Rhioptera Main bycatch Vulnerable No No cownose steindachneri life history ray 2.3.x brown Pelecanus ETP Listed by Yes, A No pelican occidentalis national regulations or CITES App I 2.3.x Heerman’s Larus ETP Listed by YES, No gull heermanni national Pr regulations or CITES App I 2.3.x bottlenose Tursiops ETP Listed by Yes, Pr No dolphin truncates national regulations or CITES App I 2.3.x common Delphinus ETP Listed by Yes, Pr No dolphin delphis national regulations or CITES App I
5.4.3 Retained Species Under the MSC standard (V1.3), only main retained species are relevant to scoring. GCB3.5.2 states that “Main” allows considerations of the weight, value or vulnerability of species caught. For instance, a species that comprises <5% of the total catch by weight may normally be considered to be a minor species (i.e. not “main”) in the catch, unless it is of high value to the fisher or of particular vulnerability, or it the total catch of the fishery is large, in which case even 5% may be a considerable catch. A species
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 44 of 264
that normally comprises 20% or more of the total catch by weight would always be considered a “main” retained species.
Evidence from observer data indicates that the Southern Gulf of California fishery retains every single one of the 60 fish, elasmobranch and crustacean species it encounters – a few of which it also discards. Even so, only bocona sardine comprised >5% of the catch of P2 retained species, categorizing it as a “main” retained species based on proportion of volume.
Bocona Sardines Data from scientific cruises conducted in May 2013 – May 2014, indicate that Bocona sardines (Cetengraulis mysticetus), made up 5.7% of the catch in the most recent year. Catch of bocona sardine varies significantly, both in terms of total volume landed and proportion of the total catch relative to thread herring (Figure 12). Between 1972 to 2014 bocona on average represented 31% of the combined catch of bocona and thread herring (min= 2%, max= 77%). In the past 5 years bocona catch has ranged from 3.3% to 55.9%. This also aligns with the historic fluctuation in catch of other sardine species catch as referenced in Section 3.2: History of the thread herring Fishery. Data obtained from a single year “scientific cruise” may not signal an overall trend in percentage volume for the fishery. Regardless, both sources of information unanimously categorize the species as ‘main retained’ for MSC purposes. (Jacob- Cervantes et al., 2013); Jacob-Cervantes, 2015).
1800 120000 effort 1600 bocona catch 100000 1400 Thread herring catch 1200 80000 1000 60000 800
Effort Effort inDays 600 40000
400 Catchin metric tons 20000 200 0 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Years
Figure 12. Catch and effort for thread herring and bocona sardine in metric tons in the southern Gulf of California. Data from Jacob-Cervantes et al., 2013; Jacob-Cervantes, 2015.
Bocona sardine is primarily an inshore species, residing over mudflats. The species is migrant, but does not make long migrations over sandy or rocky areas. Bocona sardine forms large schools, and their range spans from southern California to northern Peru, including the Revillagigedo and the Galapagos Islands. The population is considered stable, with particularly high abundance in Nicaragua and Panama.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 45 of 264
In Panama, the species is associated with upwelling in the Gulf of Panama, migrating to shallower waters between February and April (IUCN 2015).
According to Fishbase, the maximum length of the bocona sardine is reported at 22cm, with maturity reached at 12.9cm. The maximum recorded age for the species is 3 years. Juvenile bocona feed primarily on diatoms and silico-flagellates, as well as dinoflagellates and small crustaceans. Adults feed on benthic diatoms. Bocona are oviparous and have pelagic larvae. (IUCN 2015)
Bocona are a highly commercial species, and is primarily used as a baitfish for tuna, or processed into fishmeal or oil. It is mainly caught within 8km of shore using lampara, cast nets (local consumption), or purse seines. Harvests tend to fluctuate, with peaks every 2-4 years. However, it is not believed that commercial fishing is having a detrimental impact on populations. (IUCN 2015).
Bocona Sardines Management A framework for reference points was articulated in the 2012 SPFMP, where effort is to be limited by the BAC for all small pelagics (actively and passively managed species) and an additional harvest control rule is to be applied for actively managed species only.
Bocona sardine is passively managed. The SPFMP states that passive management category is for: “stocks that do not require intensive management and where monitoring of landings and abundance indices are considered sufficient for handling. However, the species considered passive management can change their status and move towards active management.” The rationale for this is that “this distinction will allow managers and scientists to concentrate efforts on stocks and segments of small pelagic fish fishery that need further attention or where you expect the most significant benefits”.
Rays Four elasmobranch species, all captured at low levels, but with vulnerable life histories were captured and retained: none are listed as ETP species either under Mexican NOM-059 or under CITES Appendices. Three of these four species are largely retained indicating that the species have commercial value. One of these species, the longtail stingray (Dasyatis longus) was captured at very low levels and was therefore not considered for scoring purposes. The two remaining species were also captured at low levels, but are listed by the IUCN: these are considered “main retained” species in this fishery, not based on weight, but on vulnerability. Spotted eagle rays (Aetobatus narinari) comprised less than 1% of the catch, but were retained 85% of the time and are listed as Near Threatened by the IUCN. Devil rays (Mobula japonica) are also caught in low volumes (<1%) but are 100% retained and are also listed as Near Threatened by the IUCN. The remaining species are discussed in the bycatch section (IUCN 2015)
Spotted Eagle Rays Spotted eagle rays (Aetobatus narinari) are also known as: white-spotted eagle ray, bonnet skate, bonnet ray, duckbill ray and spotted duck-billed ray. According to the IUCN Redlist (IUCN 2015):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 46 of 264
“The spotted eagle ray develops ovoviviparously; the eggs are retained in the female and hatch internally, feeding off a yolk sac until live birth. Females bear a maximum of four pups/litter after a gestation period of probably a year. These limited biological parameters, the species' inshore habitat and hence availability to a wide variety of inshore fishing gear (beach seine, gillnet, purse seine, benthic longline, trawl etc.), its marketability and the generally intense and unregulated nature of inshore fisheries across large parts of the species' range warrant a global listing of Near Threatened, and a Vulnerable listing in Southeast Asia where fishing pressure is particularly intense and the species is a common component of landings (future declines of >30% are expected, if they have not already occurred). With further data it will likely fall into a threatened category in other regions also.
Recorded over the continental shelf from the surface to 60 m depth in coastal and open ocean environments. They sometimes enter lagoons and estuaries and are often associated with coral-reef ecosystems. The presently known Aetobatus narinari is most probably a species-complex of at least four different species. However, it is here considered as a single species as presently recognized. Taxonomic resolution of this issue is of priority as each form will have a more restricted range than the presently described wide-ranging species, which will alter the potential effects of threatening processes on each subpopulation”
Spotted eagle ray movement is influenced by the tides, and they generally prefer to swim in temperatures between 24-27 degrees Celsius, or 75-81 Fahrenheit in shallow coastal waters by coral reefs and bays down to 26.2ft (80 m) depth. They are more active during high tides, and feed primarily on bivalves, crabs, whelks, benthic infauna they also feed on mollusks, crustaceans, particularly malacostracans (Silliman, 1999).
Devil Ray Devil rays (Mobula japonica) are also known as the spinetail mobula. Mobula japonica belongs to the Mobulidae family. According to the IUCN Redlist profile (IUCN 2015):
“The species is probably circumglobal in all temperate and tropical seas, but its distribution is not completely defined. It is a large devil ray (reaching 310 cm disc width) that is found in inshore, offshore and possibly oceanic environments. The southern Gulf of California is believed to serve as an important spring and summer mating and feeding ground for adults (Notarbartolo-di-Sciara 1988). Pupping appears to take place offshore, Ebert (2003) suggesting around offshore islands or seamounts. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara (1988) suggested that this species may be able to tolerate lower water temperatures than other mobulids. Although it is observed in small aggregations, it is not believed to be a schooling species. Size, but not sexual, segregation has been observed within the Gulf of California, México (Notarbartolo-di-Sciara 1988).
The spinetail mobula is dark blue to black above and white below. Some distinctive points of the spinetail mobula are that its head projects from the disk, the inner surface of the cephalic fins (horns) are silver-grey with black tips, while the outer surface and side behind eye is white. It also has a tail spine. The species is unlikely to be able to tolerate present levels of exploitation globally. Its large size and fecundity of a single pup per litter emphasizes the limited reproductive
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 47 of 264
potential and low productivity of this species. Mobula japanica is assessed as Near Threatened globally, but Vulnerable throughout Southeast Asia where catches and demand are increasing. Vulnerable listings may also be warranted elsewhere if future studies show declines in populations where fished.”
Rays Management Scope of NOM 029 is defined as follows:
1.1 Intended to induce sustainable use of sharks and rays, as well as contribute to the conservation and protection of elasmobranchs and other species that are caught incidentally.
1.2 This standard is mandatory for holders of permits, licenses and authorizations for directed fishing of sharks and rays, as well as for those who catch these species as bycatch.
Specific operational measures articulated in NOM-029 relevant to sharks and rays include the following possible activities and requirements:
Clause 0.20 “Due to the need that exists to verify the geographical distribution of species regulated by this standard (sharks and rays), it is necessary that permit holders for concessions and authorizations for shark fishing, as well as those that have authorization in other fisheries which by their nature may capture the species under this Standard, in an incidental manner, that carry logbooks on board their vessels to record catches of these species.
0.21 To the effect of the previous [articles], identification guides of the main species can be used, both by the fishers, as by the staff involved in logging information for fishing activities, verification, inspection and surveillance.
4.2.1. All shark individuals must be retained on board commercial fishing vessels for full use except for the species listed in paragraph 4.2.2. The exclusive use of the fins of any shark species is prohibited. In no case shark fins can be landed whose bodies were not on board.
4.2.2. Under no circumstances is it permissible to capture and retain individuals of any of the following species: whale shark (Rhincodon typus), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), sawfish (Pristis perotteti, P. pectinata and P. microdon) and giant manta ray (Manta birostris, Mobula japanica, M. thurstoni, M. munkiana, M. hypostomata and Mobula tarapacana). Any organism of these species caught incidentally must be returned to the water. These species may not be retained, live, dead, whole or some of its parts and therefore may not be subject to human consumption or marketing.
4.2.3. In order to induce an optimal sustainable use, the Secretariat, in accordance with information from the National Fisheries Charter and / or studies that exist and are validated by the National Institute of Fisheries and establish periods closed areas to catch sharks and rays, during major periods of reproduction, birth and growth of new generations of these species by the method established in Mexican Official Standard NOM-009-PESC-1993.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 48 of 264
The Secretariat in accordance with the results of the studies conducted, will announce well in advance the start and end dates of the closures, based on the procedure established in the Mexican Official Standard NOM-009-PESC-1993 through notices to be published in the Official Gazette.
4.2.4. The Secretariat will establish a national system of scientific information on sharks and rays that makes available the data for the various species of shark and ray populations to determine the population size, the size structure of the catch, the state of sexual maturity and any other biological, ecological or ecosystem parameter. This system will be fed with information from logbooks and notices of arrival as well as observers and by scientific information from research institutions performing work on the subject.
5.4.4 Bycatch Bycatch species under the MSC standard are those returned to the water, either dead or alive. Under the MSC standard (V1.3), only main bycatch species are relevant to scoring. GCB3.5.2 states that “Main” allows considerations of the weight, value or vulnerability of species caught, where main species considered on the basis of weight usually comprise at least 5% of overall landings. No species were considered main bycatch, based on weight (>5% of overall landings).
The Southern Gulf of California small pelagic fishery discards very little, where in 2013-2014 over 95% of biomass is landed and retained. In the last fishing season, a total of only six species are discarded by this fishery: undersized Opisthonema libertate, Cetengraulis mysticetus (49% returned to the water, 51% retained in 2013-2014, scored as retained), Caranx caninus (Torito), Euthinus linneatus (Bonita), Aetobatus narinari (Spotted eagle ray, 15% returned to the water, 85% retained in 2013-2014, scored as main retained), and Rhinopterna steindachneri (Cownose ray, 82% returned to the water in 2013-2014, scored as main bycatch).
There appears to be a large amount of spatial and temporal variation in catches for this fishery: For example, in Sinaloa I 2012-2013, C. orqueta was the major bycatch species (2183.5 mt, 56.9% of regional total), followed by silver stardrum (Stellifer illecebrosus (135.8 mt, 3.5%) and Mexican Barracuda, Sphyraena ensis (133.4 mt, 3.5% of regional total). Other species in the region with catches over 100mt included Orangemouth Corvina, Cynoscion xanthulus (129.8 mt) and White stardrum, Stellifer fuerthii (104.7 mt). In contrast, in Nayarit, predominant bycatch species were C. orqueta (161.1 mt, 37.9% of regional total), Mexican barracuda S. ensis (11mt, 2.6% of regional total), orangemouth corvine Cynoscion xanthulus (10.3 mt, 2.4% of regional total) and Silver stardrum S. illecebrosus (10.2mt, 2.4% of regional total). C. orqueta was the only species caught at levels exceeding 100mt in this lower volume area. In the 2013-2014 S. ensis was the species with the largest discard (283.28 mt) followed by curvina (Larimus effulgens) with 190.53 mt for the whole fleet, while C. orqueta was only recorded at 1.46 mt less than 1% of the Total Catch. Overall, it is apparent that bycatch a year ago had greater absolute volume overall (and overall landings were almost three times greater), and was comprised of very different species from this fishing season.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 49 of 264
Only one species in the fishery was considered main bycatch: Pacific cownose rays were scored as main bycatch, based on vulnerability.
Cownose Ray According to the IUCN Redlist (IUCN 2015), the cownose ray (Rhinoptera steindachneri):
“As a broadly distributed, migratory species inhabiting shallow coastal waters, it is likely an important component of fisheries throughout its range. The extent of movements throughout the eastern Pacific coast, longevity, growth rates, population structure, and age at maturity are unknown. Both sexes mature at similar sizes that are approximately 70% of their maximum size, suggesting that the species may have a relatively late age at maturity. The reproductive strategy of producing a single pup following an extended 10-12 month gestation period indicates that the species has a low productivity and is likely to be highly susceptible to overexploitation. Due to such low fecundity, fishing pressure and its important contribution to artisanal fisheries, R. steindachneri is considered to be Near Threatened throughout its range. An assessment of the species' current population status and monitoring of catches throughout its range is of priority.”
5.4.5 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species
ETP species under the MSC standard are those that are recognized by “national legislation and/or binding international agreements” or those listed on CITES Appendix I (CR v1.3 req. CB 3.11.1). The World Conservation Union also provides risk-based threat categories for species in all parts of the world, however, these listings (unlike national listings and CITES listings) are not legally binding unless invoked as such under national legislation: IUCN listings therefore, are not used to categorize species as ETP in the MSC process, but they may be used by expert team members to identify species with particular vulnerability, depletion or population-level risks that may be germane to status against limits, management needs or information deficiencies.
A complete list of all interactions with CITES listed-species, NOM 059 listed species, with associated IUCN listing categories was generated in Table 5 by SCS based on 2013-2014 observer data. Most of the species listed under national legislation, are enumerated on an individual basis, rather than by weight (as per most main retained and bycatch species). Unlike performance indicators 2.1 (Retained interactions) and 2.2 (Bycatch interactions), which score based only on “main” species, any ETP categorized species, caught at any level, is scored by the MSC standard.
In Mexico, ETP species are defined by NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2001 which employs the following categories: extinct in the wild (E), endangered (P) threatened (A) and of species concern (Pr). This source (http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/v_ingles/species/riskMexico.html, cites that Diario Oficial de la Federacion, 2002) defines these categories as follows.
Pr (Protected)– Those species or populations which could be threatened by factors that adversely affect their viability, and which determine the need to facilitate their recovery
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 50 of 264
and preservation or restoration and conservation of populations of species (This category may include the lower risk categories of the IUCN classification).
A (Threatened) – Those species or population, which could be in danger of disappearance in the short to medium term, if factors that adversely affect their viability, such as causing damage or modification of habitat or directly reducing the size of their populations, continue to operate (This category overlaps with the category of “vulnerable” in the IUCN classification)/
P (Endangered/In Danger of Extinction) – Those species whose range or population size within the country have fallen dramatically, threatening their biological viability throughout their natural habitat, due to factors such as the destruction or drastic modification of habitat, unsustainable harvesting, disease or predation, among others. This category overlaps with the categories “Critically Endangered” and “Endangered” in the IUCN classification.
EX (Probably Extinct in the Wild) – Those native Mexican species for whom documentation and studies demonstrate that examples in the wild have disappeared within the country, and of which the only known examples are either in captivity or outside of Mexican territory.
Table 11. Results from the 2013-2014 observer program for Sinaloa and Nayarit given by species and listing status. IUCN listing status is given for informative purposes only, but does not affect whether a species is categorized as ETP in the MSC system. Only CITES Appendix I and NOM-059 status define which species are scored as ETP for MSC assessments.
Category Common Latin name Catch CITES NOM- IUCN Category name Status 059 for MSC scoring Birds Brown Pelicanus 46 deaths (Sinaloa Not listed A LC ETP pelican occidentalis Zones II and III)
Heermann’ Larus No reported Not listed Pr NT ETP s gull gull heermanni mortalities 2013-14 Cetaceans Bottlenose Tursiops 287 sightings, 108 Appendix II Pr LC ETP dolphin truncates live releases, 24 deaths (Sinaloa)
Common Delphinus Sightings only Appendix II Pr LC ETP dolphin delphis
Turtles Olive Lepidochelys 1 ind, released alive Appendix I P EN not scored Ridley olivacea as ETP, no Turtle mortality
Pinnipeds Sea Lions Zalophus 82 sightings, 25 live Not listed Pr LC not scored californianus release, 0 deaths as ETP, no (Sinaloa) mortality Whale Not available Sighted only N/A* N/A* N/A* not scored as ETP, no mortality *Can’t be determined on the general level of species categorization in observer data.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 51 of 264
In the 2013-2014 fishing season used for MSC assessment, the fishery interacted with a total of six species categorized as ETP (plus sighted whales), all by NOM 059, and none listed on CITES Appendix I. Of these, only four species involved mortalities and were considered ETP for scoring purposes: two bird species (Heermann’s gulls and brown pelicans) and dolphins (Bottlenose dolphins and common dolphins). In the first season of the onboard observer program three dolphin mortality incidents were recorded on the observed vessels, the following season no dolphin mortality was recorded. The lack of dolphin mortality in the most recent year of fishing is evidence that dolphin mortality is not systematic. The species identification for the cetaceans is also being confirmed and may be relevant to categorization for ETP scoring.
ETP species with non-fatal interactions, and low rates of interactions, in observed sets included Olive Ridley turtles, listed in national legislation as at risk of extinction (all released alive) (Especie en peligro de extinction (P)), whales (sighted by observer, outside purse seine nets), (Pr) and sea lions (all released alive) (Pr).
Stakeholders in Mexico, originally participating in the full assessment process for the Gulf of California small pelagic fishery based in Sonora raised concerns about interactions in the small pelagics fishery with ETP species such as sea lions, cetaceans, elasmobranchs, birds, and sea turtles.
Brown Pelicans Brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) are primarily found in the Americas where they breed along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and range from as far south as Tierra del Fuego to as far north as Canada. The species is colonial, and movements and migrations tend to depend on local conditions. The population is believed to be increasing, though there is uncertainty for some subpopulations. Brown pelicans were considered endangered in North America in the 1970s, primarily due to pesticides such as DDT. Today, they have been delisted from the ESA and are considered a species of ‘Least Concern’ by the IUCN (IUCN 2015). The Pacific coast and Gulf of Mexico populations were delisted by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act in 2009. These populations were originally listed in 1970 in response to widespread pollutant-related reproductive failures and the population declines that directly resulted (Stinson, 2014).
California brown pelicans disperse north seasonally, along the Pacific coast from nesting areas in the south in search of food, with small numbers dispersing as far as southern British Columbia. The total metapopulation of California brown pelicans has been estimated at 70,000 breeding pairs. The timing of breeding of brown pelicans depends on their latitude, and ranges from year-round in the tropics to spring-time breeding in the extreme north of its range. Brown pelicans eat primarily fish, mostly targeting sardines and anchovies. Where there is abundant prey they group in large congregations and plunge-dive for prey from as high as sixty feet above water (Audubon 2015).
In Washington, annual peak numbers increased markedly from <100 during 1979-1986 to a high of >16,000 in 2009. Since that time, numbers have been declining, possibly in response to declining sardine
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 52 of 264
abundance, itself a response to cyclic ocean conditions; the September aerial survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service counted 7, 018 in 2013, the lowest such count since 2001. California brown pelicans feed primarily on small schooling fishes, including Northern anchovies, Pacific sardines, and Pacific mackerel. Although fluctuations in ocean conditions and forage fish abundance may cause periodic fluctuations in brown pelican populations (Stinson, 2014).
Roosting and loafing sites are important for brown pelicans, because their feathers can become waterlogged; after feeding, they roost out of the water while they dry and preen their plumage (Stinson, 2014). Interactions with fishing gear such as purse seine fisheries known to introduce oil to feathers, may cause problems for pelican or other seabirds, increasing their tendency to become water-logged and to regulate temperature (Impacts of Oil on Seabirds). While this relates to crude oil, research indicates that fish oil may have many of the same impacts (Jaques 2014).
Brown pelican are the most common species recorded by observers, with 44% of total sightings reported in the 2013-2014 season. Beyond direct mortality from interaction with fishing gear, brown pelicans may be indirectly affected by fluctuations in populations of prey species caused by overfishing.
Heermann’s Gulls
Heermann’s gull (Larus heermanni) has an estimated population of 525,000, over 90% of which nest on Isla Rasa, Mexico. The gulls disperse commonly up to central California, and small numbers even disperse as far as British Columbia and Guatemala. The overall population trend is fluctuating, likely due to effects of El Nino and compounded by overfishing on key prey species. However, these fluctuations are not of magnitude to move the species into a ‘threatened’ determination (IUCN 2015).
Heerman’s gull is a coastal species that breeds at high densities. Breeding takes place south to Nayarit and islands San Benito and San Roque, and occasionally north to California. Nests are typically on ground level, make of soil, or grass and weeds, and are lined with feathers. Heerman’s gulls typically lay 2-3 eggs, incubated by both sexes for 28 days. Both parents feed young, and first age of flight is not well known (Audobon 2015).
The gulls feed largely in inshore waters and the littoral zone. They often pirate food from other birds, by stealing fish from the pouch of a pelican or harassing birds to drop their catch. They feed primarily on small fish, but also are known to eat crustaceans, mollusks, and insects, eggs of other birds, refuse, or carrion (Audobon 2015). There are no clear reports of direct mortality of heermann’s gulls in observer reports from 2013-2014, though there may be indirect impacts from fishing of prey species.
Bottlenose Dolphins Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are found in oceans worldwide, distributed through tropical, temperate, inshore, coastal, shelf, and oceanic waters, though they are primarily coastal. NMFS estimates that there are 52,000 bottlenose dolphins in the northern Gulf of Mexico, with the majority
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 53 of 264
found on the outer continental shelf. There are an estimated 243,500 found in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Some bottlenose dolphins are migratory while others have definable multi-generational home ranges (IUCN 2015).
Bottlenose dolphins typically range from 8-12 feet in length (2.5-3.8m), and may weigh as much as 1,430 lbs (650kg), though they are typically much smaller. Bottlenose dolphins can be identified by their short and stubby beak, and color can vary substantially. They reach sexual maturity between 5-10 years of age (with males maturing at closer to 10 years of age). Gestation period is typically 12 months, and calving takes place year-round, where after calves nurse for 1-1.5 years and stay with mothers for approximately 4-6 years (American Cetacean Society 2015).
Bottlenose dolphins feed on a variety of prey, primary fish and squid. Feeding behaviors for bottlenose dolphins are diverse and include both individual prey capture and coordinated efforts. They often associate with other cetaceans, including both whales and other dolphin species. Bottlenose dolphins sometimes forage near fishery operations, including fish-farm cages gillnets, trawl gear, crab traps, or recreational gear. These interactions, along with incidental fishery interactions with other gear including driftnets, purse seines, and long-lines, have resulted in mortality of bottlenose dolphins. Bottlenose have also been a popular species for live-capture, with an estimated 1,500 caught in the US, Mexico, and Bahamas waters through 1980 (IUCN 2015).
Common Dolphins Common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) are considered an abundant species, widely distributed in the tropical to cool waters in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In the Eastern Tropical Pacific, they appear to prefer equatorial and subtropical waters where there is shallow thermocline. The IUCN quotes an estimate of nearly 3 million individuals in the eastern tropical Pacific. Common dolphins can weigh as much as 297 lbs (135kg), and reach lengths of 7.5-8.5 feet (2.3-2.6m). Short-beaked common dolphins can be identified by a distinctive hourglass pattern, formed by a cream patch along their flank and dark coloring along their back. Common dolphins reach sexual maturity between 3-4 years of age or 6-7 feet in length. They give birth to calves between 30-34 inches after a gestation period of approximately 10- 11 months (American Cetacean Society, 2015)
Common dolphins move in herds, or pods, that may average several hundred individuals. They feed on squid and small schooling fish, and in some parts of the work are known to feed at night on the deep scattering layer. Common dolphin herds have been seen working together to herd fish into tight balls for feeding (National Research Council 1992).
Common dolphins are known to associate with other species, including other dolphin species and yellowfin tuna, though reasons for such associations are not well understood. Additionally, common dolphins sometimes feed on fish escaping nets or being discarded from fishermen. Interactions with purse seine, driftnet, and trawl fisheries have been a historic threat to common dolphins, though
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 54 of 264
incidental mortality has been drastically decreased with increased regulation of fishing practices (IUCN 2015).
Information – Retained and Bycatch Species. There are three main sources of data in the Sinaloa and Nayarit thread herring fishery: two are fisheries dependent and one is fisheries independent.
Data are collected to document and quantify landings of small pelagics with market value. These landings are monitored by port observers, and also allow estimation of the relative percentage of Opisthonema spp. and other small pelagic species in annual catch. This is fisheries dependent data and in P2 is relevant only to bocona as a main retained species.
The second main source of information relevant retained species is the observer program. This program is described in more detail in section 3.4.1 (p. 43) and is a second source of fisheries dependent data, which also provides information on not just small pelagics, but also on non-target interactions.
Thirdly, fisheries independent data are being collected for the entire Gulf of California via hydroacoustic surveys which began in 2008. A description of methods and findings were are described under Fisheries Independent monitoring (p. 69).
5.4.6 Habitat
Sensitive and Protected Areas The Gulf of California has unique physical and oceanographic features and is harboring a variety of different marine environments, from deep-water trenches and coastal and island rocky reefs to the sandy and shallow waters of the Colorado River delta. Due to its constant tidal and wind-driven upwelling systems, the Gulf is highly productive and provides 60-70% of Mexico’s National fisheries (Cudney-Bueno et al., 2009). Over 6000 species of fauna, with over 4800 invertebrate species, have been registered in the Gulf (Garcia and Gastelum, 2015).
To protect the diverse marine communities and ecosystems the Mexican government has established 18 protected areas in the region, including ten biosphere reserves ( Alto Golfo de California y Delta del Río Colorado, el Pinacate y gran Desierto de Altar, Isla San Pedro Mártir, el Vizcaíno, Sierra la Laguna, Islas Marías, Bahía de los Ángeles, canales de Ballenas y de Salsipuedes, Marismas Nacionales Nayari), three areas of protección de flora y fauna (Islas del Golfo de California, Cabo San Lucas and Balandra, Laguna Madre y Delta del Río Bravo) and six national parks (Bahía de Loreto, Cabo Pulmo, Isla Isabel, San Lorenzo archipiélago, Islas Marietas, , Espíritu Santo Archipielago and the Dorsal of the Pacifico Oriental (Figure 12).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 55 of 264
Figure 13. Map of Protected Areas in the Gulf of California. Several types of federal protection are represented in the map, with classifications ranging from Biosphere Reserves (darkest green), National Parks (lightest green), and Areas of Protection of Flora and Fauna in yellow. Additionally, National Monuments are shaded red and Marine Sanctuaries are in pink. (From CONANP website, 2015)
Discussion with the client indicated that key sensitive and protected areas in the Gulf of California do not occur within the range of the Sinaloa & Nayarit fleet. Furthermore several gaps between conservation objectives and designation of protected areas have been identified (Ulloa et al 2006) Protected areas are established as zones of multiple use Mexico, with approximately only 5 to 11% of their area restricted to commercial fishing (Bourillón and Torre, 2012).
Information based on species, habitat, ecosystems and biophysical process was evaluated and used to propose 54 conservation priority areas in the Gulf of California and the west coast of southern Baja California. Two of these 54 conservation priority areas are located in the coastal areas off Nayarit and Sinaloa. These areas include sandy sand, wetlands, AIB of marine invertebrates, mangroves and complex bottom substrates which are important for primary productivity and recruitment zones for sardines and other commercial fish species (Ulloa et al., 2006). The eastern side of the Gulf of California is covered by
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 56 of 264
extensive mangroves found inside coastal lagoons, numerous marine species use of the edge of mangroves as nursery and feeding grounds (Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008).
Gear Impacts The fleet is assumed to operate in mid-water and therefore has been believed to have minimal impacts, causing little or no damage to biogenic habitats. Information gathered from the onboard observer program and VMS data shows that fishing activities take place very close to shore (Fig. 13), with records from the observer data with a the distance from shore as low as 0.25 mn. In zones III and IV where fishing occurs in shallowest waters and closest to shore, 14% of sets (n=41 sets) for the Mazatlán-based fleet occurred in 0-5 fathoms (0-9.14 meters) (Figure 14). Given the characteristic the fishing nets that range from 30 to 60 meters (16.4 to 32 fathoms) in length, it is likely that at such shallow depths the net is coming into contact with the benthic substrate. Catches also include benthic species including white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei), Jaiba Callinectes spp. and the longtail stingray (Dasyatis longa), a species associated with demersal fisheries in the region (IUCN), which also indicates that nets are likely to be interacting with the bottom substrate.
Figure 14. Sample from VMS track of vessel in the small pelagics fleet based in Mazatlan. Source: Maz Sardina
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 57 of 264
Figure 15. Depth of sets in fathoms, within fishing zones I – V for the observed area described in Figure 3.
The interaction with the bottom may result in damage of benthic structure and communities. The distribution of sediments in the platform of the central Pacific ocean in front of the coasts on Nayarit show a pattern were the coarser and more sandy substrates are found closer inshore, while the exterior section of the platform are covered in silt and clay (Curray, 1969) (Figure 15). Research carried out in 2004 by CRIP with Support from SAGARPA-CONACYT evaluated the impact of bottom trawlers from the shrimp and demersal finfish fisheries in the bottom substrates in the Gulf of California. Despite the changes in sediment structure as a result of the suspension and redisposition of organic matter, the study did not find significant changes in benthic communities affected by bottom trawls (López-Martínez et al., 2010). The study suggested that this was due to the high energy process in this area where benthic communities are capable of absorbing the impact of the bottom trawls (Sanchez et al 2009). There is no documented evidence that this purse seining or purse seine fishing elsewhere, even when touching bottom, has had irreversible effects on marine habitats. Geographic location of sets obtained from the Observers Program was overlaid with habitat maps of substrate types (Figure 16). The findings indicate that in the northern state of Sinaloa fishing occurs in areas dominated by sandy substrates, in the central area the fishery was operates on sediment dominated by clay and silt fractions, and in southern section of Sinaloa and northern state Nayarit most of the hauls were in sandy and silt substrates (Jacob Cervantes et al., 2015d): these areas are also used by the important shrimp trawl fishery for Mexico, based in Mazatlan.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 58 of 264
Figure 16. Spatial distribution of the sediment types in relation to fishing intensity from 2012 to 2014. Sediment types include Arena (Sand, blue dotted), Roca (Rock, black), Arena-Grava (Sand-Gravel, orange), Limo-Arena (Silt-Sand, green dotted), Limo-Arcilla (Silt-Clay, grey dotted) and Lances (Sets). (Jacob Cervantes et al., 2015d).
The characteristics of the ecosystems in the Sinaloa and Nayarit coastlines make them important nursery and recruitment zones for marine species (Ulloa et al., 2006). Impacts of purse seine gear on nursery habitats are not well understood as there is no size data for bycatch species. Research on bycatch composition of shrimp bottom trawlers in the Gulf of California indicates that a high percentage of bycatch species in this fishery are captured at small sizes (Acevedo-Cervantes et al., 2012)
Interviews onsite indicate that bottom contact should be avoided as the damage to the fishing gear can be substantial. The majority of protected areas are not an effective tool at protecting marine substrates from effects of fishing on bottom surfaces (Bourillón and Torre, 2012). NOM-001 does not prohibit inshore fishing, likely based on the assumption that the small pelagic purse seine fishery would not fish in mid-water versus close inshore areas. In contrast, NOM-002 prohibits shrimp trawls from operating in
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 59 of 264
areas 0-5 fathoms in depth, with the intent of protecting populations of inshore benthic juvenile finfish and crustaceans.
The observer program report for 2012-2103 confirms that the depth regulations established by NOM- 002 are only applicable to shrimp trawlers and that currently there is no zoning or depth regulation for the purse seine fleet.
5.4.7 Ecosystem
Trophic Relationships Ecosystem interactions relevant to the southern Gulf of California small pelagic fishery include the impacts of the removal of low trophic level fish biomass on the structure and function of the Gulf of California ecosystem. Removing lower trophic-level species has the potential to impact the dynamics and abundance of their predator populations (Cury et al., 2000), Scoring for ecosystem performance indicators will by harmonized with the northern Gulf of California portion of the fishery unless the unit can demonstrate that it has a stronger understanding of ecosystem dynamics in the southern region of the Gulf.
As explained by Cury et al. (2000), most large marine ecosystems typically contain (1) a very large number of species at the lower (e.g., planktonic) trophic levels, (2) a large number of species (e.g., predatory fishes, large coelenterates, seabirds, marine mammals, etc.) that, as adults at least, feed at the top level, and (3) a few but crucial intermediate small, plankton-feeding pelagic fish species, like thread herring and sardines. These plankton-feeding pelagic fish species transfer energy from the lower to the higher trophic levels (Bakun et al. 2009, Cury et al. 2000). In the Gulf of California ecosystem there are a number of small pelagic species through which energy is transmitted to higher trophic levels. Most species that prey on thread herring are opportunists and feed on a variety of other species. Jacobs et al (2015) indicate that large pelagic predators in this ecosystem have a broad diet that includes other small pelagic species, including the South American pilchard (Sardinops sagax) and chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and mollusks and cephalods (Jacobs et al. 2015), concluding that there is enough scientific evidence that supports the idea that the small pelagic fisheries in southern Gulf of California do not affect the structure and function of the relationships between the species. However, Opisthonema spp. is an important item in their diets of blue-footed boobies (Sula nebouxii), contributing 37.1% of its diet (Jacob et al. 2015). Whilebocona sardine is considered a main retained species, is also an important prey component in the diet of royal tern (Thalasseus maximus). Both S. nebouxxi and T. maximus are protected species under NOM-029. Velarde et al. (1994) found that a change in prey stock abundance may result in a change in diet of these seabirds, indicating that these seabird populations are sustained by the availability of other small pelagic fish species in the Gulf of California, by adjusting their diet to the more abundant species. The Bryde`s whales in the Gulf of California feed mainly on Pacific sardines and thread herring (Urbán- Ramirez and Flores 1996). Salvadeo et al. (2007) found a strong relationship between the abundances of
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 60 of 264
these whales and the amount of sardine capture in the Gulf of California that both coincided with El Niño events.
Ecological Models
There are a number of ecological models used to study the trophic dynamics of small pelagics in the Gulf of California (Arreguín-Sánchez & Calderón-Aguilera, 2002; Arreguín-Sánchez & Martínez-Aguilar, 2004; Rosas-Ruíz et al., 2008; Lercari, 2006, Morales-Zarate et al. 2004). Morales-Zarate et al (2004) used 29 functional groups in Ecopath and Ecosim models to study the trophic structure of the Pacific sardine in the north Gulf of California, concluding that predation and competition had a higher impact than fishing activities. Del Monte-Luna et al. (2011) conclude that the documented scientific evidence “supports the notion that the small pelagics fishery in the Gulf of California does not measurably affect the physical habitat or the functional relationships between the species comprising the pelagic ecosystem”. However, the majority of these studies have focused on the northern part of the Gulf and on Pacific Sardine (Sardinpos sagax) as it’s the most abundant species in the Gulf of California.
Hernández-Padilla et al. (2015) used an Ecopath model for thread herring and bocona sardine in the southern gulf of California with 39 functional groups ( 21 fish, 12 invertebrates, 2 primary producers and one for birds, sea turtles, zooplankton and detritus each). The findings indicate a higher value for key species index (k) for bocona sardine while thread herring sardine was found to have higher ascendency indices as related to the arrangement of functional groups in trophic networks. Removals of thread herring are reflected in the ecosystem order maintenance, whereas removal of bocona relates to ecosystem decay. The authors suggest that their results only provide a visualization of the role of these species in the ecosystem and don’t offer conclusions to help establish permissible harvest rates. However, they conclude that these results do provide information in a precautionary sense about which species will warrant greater attention when generating measures that regulate exploitation (Hernández- Padilla et al., 2015).
The results from this model also point to the importance of disaggregating small pelagic species (Arreguín-Sánchez et al., 2015) and not only discerning the biomasses of different small pelagic species, but also that special considerations should be given to include major predators for the respective species. New work is underway to improve preliminary models and understanding the trophic functions of small pelagics in the Gulf ecosystem by disaggregating different small pelagic species in Ecopath and Ecosim models: the last will consider factors of environmental variability on the biomass of the small pelagic species (Arreguín-Sánchez et al., 2015). The latest advances on the progress of the research were shared during the onsite in May 2015. At this time there was still a need to incorporate landing data for the different important commercial species into the models.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 61 of 264
5.5 Principle Three: Management System Background
5.5.1 The Fishery and Jurisdictions in the Area of Operation The small pelagic fishery under consideration mainly targets thread herring, which is comprised of three species (Opistonema libertate, O. bulleri and O. mediraste), and represents 70% of the landings. However, the bocona sardine (Cetengraulis mysticetus) is also present in the landings with around 30%. Some years the bocona sardine can represent up to around 55% like in 2012 (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2013). The fleet is based in the port of Mazatlan, Sinaloa and is composed of 10 fishing vessels with a hold capacity between 150 to 250 metric tons each and with approximately 10 fishers onboard (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2013) (Appendix 6.1). All vessels fish with purse-seine nets with sizes between 250 and 600 m of length and 30 to 60 m fall (depth), with a 25.4 mm of mesh size (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2015). Depending on the captain’s experience and the volume of the catch, the set of the net can last between 1.5 to 3 hours (Doode-Matsumoto, 1999). Not all the fishing vessels operate every fishing season, due to economic reasons or mechanical failures: for example only seven vessels operated during the 2013-2014 season, (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2014).
All fishing vessels have a fishing permit issued by CONAPESCA based on the technical opinion issued by INAPESCA, after analyzing the statutes of the fishery. The permits have to be renewed every 5 years and fishing vessels are required (enforced) to use Vessel Monitoring System equipment (VMS system) for tracking the spatial position of fishing operations.
This fishery operates off the coast of the Sinaloa, Nayarit and Jalisco states, from Punta Ahometo Bahia Banderas in the south (Jacob-Cervantes 2012), from 2 nautical miles off the coast (around 6 m depth) to a maximum allowed of 20 nautical miles (~37 km) (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2014). This fishing area is located in Pacific waters under the jurisdiction of the United Mexican States (Mexico). Due to the distribution of the fishing operations within the national EEZ and the biology of species, the fishery is considered to be under a single jurisdiction managed by Mexico.
5.5.2 Legal structure for Fisheries Management and Fishery Management Plan Mexico is a federal presidential constitutional republic and its structure is based in the Constitution. The Mexican Constitution, in Article 27, establishes that “The Nation has full ownership over all natural resources of the continental shelf and the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas of the islands.” In order to fulfill this responsibility, the General Law for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture (Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentable, LGPAS) was decreed in 2007 (DOF, 2007). Execution of the LGPAS is under the jurisdiction of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA) via the National Commission of Fish and Aquaculture (CONAPESCA).
The main purpose of the LGPAS, defined in its first Article, is “[…]regulating, promoting and managing the use of fishery and aquaculture resources [….] establishing the basis for the exercise of those attributions of the federation, states and municipalities, under the overarching principles of concurrences and with the
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 62 of 264
participation of fishers [….] with the purpose of promoting the integral and sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture.”
For delivering sustainable fisheries, the objectives of the LGPAS are listed in its Article 2 and include:
I. “To establish and define the principles to regulate, promote and applied an integral management under a sustainable manner.”
III. “To establish the basis for the ordination, conservation, protection, repopulation and sustainable utilization of fisheries and aquaculture resources, as well as the protection and rehabilitation of those ecosystems in which these resources are.”
Other objectives are related to the quality of life of fishers, the fisheries planning process, access rights, application of the law by all governmental levels, fishers’ participation, support of scientific research, permits system, quality and certification of fisheries and aquaculture products, enforcement, infringement and sanctions, and how to assure that fishing and aquaculture are prioritized for food production.
In 1992, the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization (Ley Federal de Metrología y Normalización) (DOF 1992) established the integration of Official Mexican Norms (Norms/NOMs). The Norms, which are obligatory (legally bidning), technical regulations that control a diverse range of production processes including sectors such as manufacturing through to fisheries. In Article 40 the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization establishes that a Norm “regulates procedures to assure the preservation of natural resources […] and if necessary to seek preferential right to access, utilization and benefit of fisheries resources to indigenous communities and people […] in those places that they occupy and inhabit.” In 1993 the NOM-001PESC-1993 was published to provide a suite of specific regulations for the small pelagic fisheries in the Mexican Pacific coast, to assure the conservation, preservation and rational use of this resources. The Norm establishes operational and biological regulations (DOF 1993) that:
. control fishing effort (number of fishing vessels) . specify allowable gear (purse-seine nets allowed ranging from 366-640 m length) . specify fishing vessels sizes (80 tons to more than 200 tons of hold capacity), . request that scientific observers be allowed onboard of the fishing vessels . specify minimum size limits for thread herring species (Ophistonema spp.) (minimum size of capture of 160 mm of standard length).
Another important legal document for the management of thread herring sardine is the National Fisheries Chart (Carta Nacional Pesquera, CNP). The CNP is a binding instrument for the fisheries authorities’ decision-making process. This Chart includes the diagnosis and the integral assessment of a fishery, fisheries and conservation indicators, and recommendations by the National Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INAPESCA), for the management of the fisheries that are included in the CNP. The CNP is updated: before its publication in the National Gazette (Diario Oficial, DOF), the CNP undergoes a public review process by the publication of the updated draft of the Chart in the DOF. This allows the general
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 63 of 264
public, non-governmental organizations and the academic sector, among others, to give an opinion of the fisheries status. The update of CNP is prepared by INAPESCA every two or three years, the latest version was published in 2012 (DOF, 2012a).
Fishery Management Plans (Planes de Manejo Pesquero) are elaborated by INAPESCA following the stipulation of the LGPAS. The Small Pelagic Fisheries Management Plan (SPFMP) was published in 2012 (DOF, 2012b). The main objectives of the SPFMP are to promote the assessment of the biomass and recruitment of sardines, anchovies, mackerel and associated species in northwestern Mexico, to preserve the yield and economical benefit of their fisheries, to reduce the impact of their environment interactions, to promote economic benefits to society, and to assure the quality of their fisheries products. The SPFMP includes a diagnosis of the fishery, the objectives of the plan, a set of management measures, a research program, an estimation of cost of management, enforcement issues and measures for the implementation and update of the plan. The plan is reviewed annually (DOF, 2012b) though an internal process, only when there is a relevant event or amend an updated version of the management plan is made public.
Objectives of the Management Plan The overarching goals of the SPFMP can be summarized into five main categories, each category includes a series of specific objectives.
. Resources: To maintain the stock in a sustainable level by controlling the fishing effort in the fishery. The level of effort, calculated as the pooled total hold capacity of the fleet, should equal the estimated optimal level. Fishing permits issues to individuals vessels, are used to control the number of vessels fishing. Elements such as vessels size, storage and fishing gear characteristics are also considered when permits are issued.
. Economic: To optimize the economic yield by controlling the minimum size of capture, to assure a high level of recruitment. To promote efficient and economically profitable management measures. To provide fisheries forecast information to fisheries companies and authorities for the programming and planning of their activities.
. Social: To conserve the economic benefit of the fishery by promoting the generation of employment and income, and to contribute to cover the real cost of management, fisheries research and inspection and surveillance.
. Environment: To minimize the impact of fishing operations in the ecosystem, particularly in area with ecological significance, and to promote responsible fishing practices.
. Fish Products Safety and Quality: To assure that the fishing products meet the standards of safety and quality for the domestic and international markets.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 64 of 264
Associated timelines for the accomplishment of these goals are determined in short, medium and long term. The audit team did not receive any timelines with specific dates associated to the completion of milestones in the individual objectives for each goal.
Fishing Indicators and Reference Points (See also section 3.3) In Mexican fisheries, fishing indicators are based on the Maximum Sustainable Yield rationale (INAPESCA 2002), were fisheries’ seasonal catches are compared to the Optimal Yield level (OY). The OY is the catch level that is equal to or less than the Biologically Acceptable Catch (BAC) (DOF 2012b). The BAC is a precautionary measure, with acceptable values of 5% to 25% of the estimated biomass. In the practice the OY is determined with respect to the BAC, were OY is lower than BAC to avoid overfishing. Harvest control rules for small pelagic fisheries vary depending of the nature of the species. For the bocona sardine “passive stock management” is applied and in this case the BAC value is set at 25% of the most recent adult biomass estimation (Jacob-Cervantes 2015a). Thread herring species, in contrast, are considered an “actively managed species”. The harvest control rule “intends to reduce the catch when there is a biomass decline. This is achieved through the determination of a threshold of minimum biomass to guarantee a sustainable use of the stock.”(See section 3.3.7).
When a reference point is reached, or passed, emergent measures are taken when considered permissible and feasible according to biological, ecological, legal, administrative and socioeconomic factors (DOF 2012b). In the SPFMP four control rule-triggered measures are considered:
. Temporal or spatial closures
. Temporal changes in particular areas of the allowable minimal size.
. Establishment or change of total allowable catch per species.
. Restrictions in the allowable effort.
5.5.3 Concurrent Laws with the Fishery Management The LGPAS is designed in harmonization and accord with the The General Law for the Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente), which considers habitat effects that may occur from fishing operations and industrial fishing processes, and in accord with the General Law of Wildlife and its Regulations (Ley General de Vida Silvestre) which regulates measures for protected species. Fishing product processes and fishing operations at sea are regulated by The General Law for the Prevention and Integral Management of Waste (Ley General para la Prevención y Gestión Intergral de los Residuos, the General Law for the Prevention and Integral Management of Waste and its Regulations (Ley General para la Prevención y Gestión Integral de los Residuos) and the Law of Dumping in the Mexican Marine Areas (Ley de Vertimientos en las Zonas Marinas Mexicanas). Fish processing plants are also regulated in their use of water by the Law of National Waters and its Regulations (Ley de Aguas Nacionales) and the Federal Law of Environmental Liability (Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental). More recently, the fishing
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 65 of 264
industry has to follow some regulations of the General Law of Climate Change (Ley General de Cambio Climático).
Procedurally, the fisheries management sector is regulated by the Federal Law on Administrative Procedure (Ley Federal de Procedimientos Administrativos, LFPA), that specifies protocols for the development of new administrative procedures and regulations.
5.5.4 Groups with Interest in the Fishery The client is the only fishery group that targets the small pelagics in the area.
Other groups that have an interest in the fishery are NGOs, Academic Centers, and Universities, and may include: Sustainable Fishery Partnerships (SFP, eNGO), Comunidad y Biodiversidad (COBI, eNGO), ProNatura (eNGO), World Wildlife Fund Mexico (WWF, eNGO), EDF Mexico; Isla (eNGO), Niparaja (eNGO), Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa (UAS); Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias del Mar (CICIMAR).
5.5.5 Management Organizations and Decision Making Processes Federal Regulatory Organizations that have interest in the fishery include (DOF 2007; DOF 2012b):
SAGARPA Since 2001, SAGARPA, the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadaría, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación, SAGARPA) has been in charge of administering fisheries and aquaculture legislation. Oversight of CONAPESCA falls under the jurisdiction of SAGARPA.
CONAPESCA CONAPESCA (Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca) is an administrative entity of SAGARPA and is responsible for management, coordination and policy development related to the sustainable use and exploitation of fisheries and aquatic resources. CONAPESCA’s responsibilities include management of the fisheries in the country, guiding the development of fishery specific regulations and fisheries management systems and standards such as the NOMs, issuing quota and permitting. The technical advisor for CONAPESCA is INAPESCA. Fishing violations are penalized under the terms of the Fisheries Act and its Regulations and are enforced through coordination between CONAPESCA and the Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (PROFEPA).
INAPESCA INAPESCA, the National Fisheries Institute is responsible for all technical aspects of fishing activities in Mexico. The main responsibilities of the INAPESCA include the development of management plans, performing surveys of abundance and estimating fisheries yields along with proposing quota. In practice, surveys and stock assessments are completed by Regional Fishery Centers known as “CRIPs” (Centro Regional de Investigación Pesquera), which are subdivisions of INAPESCA. INAPESCA serves in a technical advisory role to CONAPESCA.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 66 of 264
SEMARNAT SEMARNAT is the federal agency responsible for promoting the protection, restoration and conservation of ecosystems and natural resources and environmental goods and services in Mexico. In particular, SEMARNAT oversees the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and biodiversity, pollution control and prevention, management of water resources, and preventing and mitigating climate change impacts. SEMARNAT comprises a series of undersecretaries, commissions. And institutes. But does not regulate fishing activities SEMARNAT is however responsible for protection of marine resources via establishing protected natural areas such as those in the Gulf of Mexico and NOMs that protect specific species via CONANP. SEMARNAT consults with SAGARPA to determine fisheries measures such as season openings and closures, in order to ensure that resource use is performed sustainably. SEMARNAT also houses PROFEPA,which is issues sanction to increase compliance with environmental regulations.
PROFEPA
A decentralized agency of SEMARNAT, the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA - Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente), handles environmental disputes related to all types of environmental protected species, such as dolphins. PROFEPA also performs inspections and provides inspection training to SAGARPA staff to help catch and discourage IUU fishing practices that present an environmental threat.
CONANP CONANP is the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas), and is another decentralized agency under SEMARNAT in charge of the administration of Natural Protected Areas.
CNPA National Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Consejo Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura, CNPA) is an inter- sectorial forum mandated by the LGPAS, for the support, coordination, consultation, concentration, and advice for the fisheries management decisions under. The CNAP is conformed by representatives of the Federal regulatory organizations, social organizations, and fisheries and aquaculture producers groups. The CNPA defines the management objectives of the Fisheries Management Plans (DOF 2007).
CEPA State Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Consejo Estatal de Pesca y Acuicultura, CEPA) is council similar as the CNPA but at state level, mandated by the LGPAS. The CEPA also helps to define the management objectives for the Fisheries Management Plan (DOF 2007).
CCNNA Advisory Committee for the Normalization of Agricultural Food Production (Consejo Consultivo para la Normalización Agroalimentaria) is an advisor committee for SAGARPA, which objective is to propose, compile, review, approve, modified, cancel, publish and broadcast Mexican official norms related with the
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 67 of 264
food production based on agriculture, livestock, aquaculture and fisheries (DOF 2012c). In the case of regulations for aquaculture and fisheries, the Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing is in charge of this sector. The Committee and sub-committees members belong to the governmental, industrial, productive, academic, service and consumer sectors. This composition ensures the participation of all stakeholders of the fisheries.
Consulting process for the NOM and Management Plan The LGPAS establishes that the objectives of the fishery stated in the fishery management plan are defined by the National Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Consejo Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura, CNPA) and the State Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Consejo Estatal de Pesca y Acuicultura, CEPA), and communicated to INAPESCA which is responsible for elaborating aspects of plan implementation (DOF 2007).
To meet the procedure established by the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization, the review and amendment of NOM-003-PESC-1993 included the “Programa Nacional de Normalización” in 2014. During this year meeting were held with the Group of Technical Work (Grupo de Trabajo Tecnico-GTT), sessions with the subcomite of Responsible Fishing (Subcomité de Pesca Responsable) and the National Advisory Committee on Standardization Agrifood (Comité Consultivo Nacional de Normalización Agroalimentaria). In the two meeting held with the GTT, which allowed to define a proposal for the modification of the NORM were carried out the 8th of May and 15th of May, participants included representatives from INAPESCA, CICIMAR and the Direction of Standardization (Dirección de Normatividad), the latter meeting also included representatives from the NGO Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C. The proposal for the modification of the NOM was published in the Official Gazette (DOF) from 4th of December, 2014 to the 2nd of February for public comment. During this time period 71 comments from 61 plaintiffs were received. The assessment team was informed that at the time this assessment was carried out to the end of 2015, the final analysis of the responses and comments received were being carried out with the GTT and once this was completed the document would be submitted for approval by the Subcommittee on Responsible Fisheries and the CCNNA for its publication in the Official Gazette (DOF).
Prior to the publication of the Small Pelagics Fishery Management Plan, a period was opened to receive public comments through several meetings in 2012 at the different ports where this fishery is carried out (Guaymas March 16-18; Guaymas April 26-29; Ensenada May 26-27; and Guaymas June 21-24). The annual reviews for the small pelagics fisheries management plan are an internal process, thus the assessment team did not receive any information on how these evaluations are carried out.
5.5.5 Monitoring, Control, Surveillance and Enforcement of the Fishery
Fisheries Dependent Monitoring The control of the fishery starts by the analysis of the catches at the end of the season by INAPESCA: there is no real-time in-season catch accounting. Each year, estimates of biomass for each of the species are compared with the control rules, which are based on the Maximum Sustainable Yield and Biological
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 68 of 264
Acceptable Catch for the thread herrings and bocona sardine respectively (Jacob-Cervantes, 2015a, Jacob- Cervantes 2015b).
Measures that may be implemented for amending effort control and performance against the harvest control rule as stipulated by the Fishery Management Plan include:
. Temporal or spatial closures
. Temporal changes in particular areas of the allowable minimal size.
. Establishment or change of total allowable catch per species.
. Restrictions in the allowable effort.
. The process of implementing these measures to avoid overfishing would include technical meetings between the Industry, in this case Maz Sardina, INAPESCA and CONAPESCA. The client confirmed that results for critical biomass, abundance estimates, biological acceptable capture, reference points obtained from the stock assessment and estimates from hydroacustic surveys were shared by INAPESCA with the industry in a technical meeting. During this meeting the results of the harvest control rule were discussed. These meeting are not public and the assessment team was unable to verify minutes, dates or participants in the technical meeting.
Fisheries Independent monitoring See Section Background Principle 1 (p. 28)
Surveillance and Enforcement The National Inspection and Monitoring Program operates under CONAPESCA’s General Directorate of Inspection and Monitoring (Direccion General de Inspeccion y Vigilancia, DGIV). The program has as one of its main objective to establish forceful action from the Federal Government to directly combat the fishing, traffic and trade of illegal products from fisheries and aquaculture. The National Inspection and Monitoring Program operates under several legal frameworks including the Federal Constitution, the CONAPESCA-Inspection and Vigilance, SAGARPA’s internal regulations, and the Noms. Specifications about infractions, administrative sanctions, responsibilities and review processes are described and specified in Chapters I, II, III and IV of Fourteenth Title of the LGPAS (DOF 2007).
The General Directorate of Inspection and Monitoring also collaborates with other general Directorates, including the Directorate General for Planning, Programming and Evaluation (Direccion General de Planeacion, Programacion y Evaluacion - DGPPE) that is responsible for landing tickets, and the Directorate General for Fisheries and Aquaculture Regulations (Direccion General Ordenamiento Pesquero y Acuicola, DGOPA), that is in charge of the verification of permits, concessions and vessels.
Operating under the State Committees for Inspection and Supervision are interinstitutional organisms that carry out the planning and execution of the inspection and surveillance operations. Representatives from three sectors of the government and industry representatives constitute these Committees.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 69 of 264
PROFEPA handles environmental disputes related to all types of environmental protected species, such as dolphins. PROFEPA also performs inspections and provides inspection training to SAGARPA staff to help catch and discourage IUU fishing practices that present an environmental threat. Also they can participate during COANPESCPA inspection operations in the cases when a protected species is caught or fishing is inside a Natural Protected Area.
Figure 17. Organization of federal and state agencies involved in fisheries surveillance and enforcement.
Federal Institutions Secretary of the Marina (SEMAR) Technical Committe Attorney General of Mexico (PGR) from CONAPESCA Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA) Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA) Secretariat of Agriculture… Fisheries (SAGARPA) Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (SCT) SAGARPA/ Federal Police (PFP) CONAPESCA
Directorate of Inspection State Committees Producers- and Monitoring Inspection & Surveillance Technical Advisors
State and Municipal Bodies (Secretary of Fishing, Secretary of Security, Ministerial and Municipal Attorneys)
Since 2012 the National Inspection and Monitoring Program performs an internal evaluation of the efficiency of its results with a “Logical Framework”. The two indicators are used for measuring performance are related to coverage: (1) Percentage of verifications of verification for compliance with the fisheries and aquaculture regulations and (2) Percentage of fisheries with regulation attended by inspection and surveillance operatives. In 2014 with 26,895 inspection operations of 15 of priority fisheries of the country, fulfilling the goal set by the two indicators in the “Logical Framework” was accomplished. However, as the evaluation report for the National Inspection and Monitoring Program points out, the current evaluation indicators measure coverage, there is no indicator for the actual impact of the program in term of its overarching objectives. There is also no external review of the program and its outputs (CONEVAL, 2014)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 70 of 264
Fishing operations are tracked by a VMS system to monitor the location of vessels at all times and to enforce the non-entrance into natural protected areas. At CONAPESCA’s central office the National Centre of Vessels Satellite Tracking and Monitoring is in charge of monitoring all fishing vessels that have to use the VMS system. This centre works 24 hours during the 365 days of the year.
According to records from CONAPESCA’s inspections there are no infractions recorded for this fleet. A single infraction prior to 2010 for a vessel fishing in shallow waters was lifted as there are no regulations applicable to the small-pelagics fleet regarding depth or fishing areas. According to the client during the inspection trips made by federal agents no retained ETP species were found during 2014 or 2015.
5.5.6 Education and Training In 2014 CRIP-M personal offered the “Good Practices in the Small Pelagic Fishing” course to fishing captains, crew and port personal of the Maz Sardina fleet. The objective of this course was to introduce attendants to the biology, ecology and management of the fishery, and to train the fishers in best practices for handling incidental catch of marine turtles, sea birds and marine mammals (example of Diapositivas del curso 2014). All participants received a certificate of attendance (example of Constancia de Asistencia 2014). The “Good Practices in the Small Pelagic Fishing” course was carried out on November 9 and 10, 2015. The course covered the following topics: Mechanisms for assessing and review of management system and how consultation processes work.
5.5.7 Fishery’s Research Plan The Research Plan of the small pelagic fisheries is included in the SPFMP as a discreet section called the “Research Program”: updating occurs with updating of the overall SPFMP. The research program takes into consideration that small pelagic specie populations have large changes in their abundance related to the environment and the rate of exploitation. The current program suggests that research must focus on developing adaptive reference points for management. However, most of the research outlined in the SPFMP is related to Pacific sardines. The program cover two main areas: 1) Scientific and technological research, and 2) Socioeconomic research.
Scientific and technological aspects the program consider and recognize eight main issues:
Population Dynamics: in order to understand mortality, recruitment and migration rates. The monitory of landings at all ports should continue, complemented by research fishing cruises. For the fishery based in Sinaloa at least one test fishing cruise per year should be carried out. Periodic Biomass Assessment: biomass estimation and evaluation of population structure should be carried out at least once a year. Hydroacoustic methods and other simpler methods should be considered for these assessments. Meta-population Dynamics: preliminary data suggest that the Pacific sardine stocks in California, Magadalena Bay and in the Gulf of California are related. In order to ground-truth this information, tagging experiments and ichthyoplankton are suggested.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 71 of 264
Environmental influences: it is necessary understand how environmental changes affect small pelagic populations and to include this knowledge in the management system. Bi-national studies: Pacific sardine stocks are shared with the USA and the program suggests strengthening bi-national research studies to support the management of the shared stocks. Ecosystem approach: use of Observer Program(s) to document the degree of interrelationship of fishing operations and the ecosystem, and to develop models that use the ecosystem approach. Predictive Models: models that consider the biology, environment and the effect of fishing on population structure should be developed to predict short- and medium-term abundance and catches. This model should also consider economic variables. Exploratory and experimental fishing: preliminary results show high abundance of sardines in midwater depths. In order to verify this information and to assess the possible development of a fishery, experimental fishing with midwater trawls should be done.
The socioeconomic aspects of the program suggest the development of economics and market studies. The economic studies also need to include social aspects in order to strength the process for taking management decisions. The market studies should focus in the research of new markets for the small pelagic products and to evaluate alternative uses of these resources
Mechanism for Evaluation for the Management System
There is no formal evaluation of whole management system. However, the integration of Official Mexican Norms has to follow the mechanism established in the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization (Ley Federal de Metrología y Normalización) (DOF 1992) before its final publication in the National Gazette (Diario Ofical). The procedures for the publication of the Mexican Norms include several rounds of evaluation at several stages of the NOM project carried out by INAPESCA, the Group of Technical Work (GTT), and the Subcommittee for Responsible Fishing (SCPR), approval by the National Advisory Committee on Standardization and a draft is published in the National Gazette for public comments. The same process is followed for the National Fishery Chart and the Fisheries Management Plan. During this consultation process the Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing of the Advisory Committee for the Normalization of Agricultural Food Production have a key role on the review and evaluation of the NORMs, CNP and FMP.
The members of the Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing are: 1. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación, por conducto de la Dirección General de Normalización Agroalimentaria. 2. Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca a través de la Dirección General de Ordenamiento Pesquero y Acuícola, la Unidad de Asuntos Jurídicos, la Dirección General de Inspección y Vigilancia, la Dirección General de Planeación, Programación y Evaluación y la Dirección General de Infraestructura. 3. Servicio Nacional de Sanidad, Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 72 of 264
4. Instituto Nacional de Pesca a través de la Dirección General Adjunta de Investigación Pesquera en el Atlántico, la Dirección General Adjunta de Investigación Pesquera enel Pacífico y la Dirección General Adjunta de Investigación en Acuacultura. 5. Secretaría de Marina Armada de México. 6. Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes. 7. Secretaría de Economía (Dirección General de Normas). 8. Secretaría de Turismo. 9. Secretaría de Salud (Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios). 10. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales por conducto de la Dirección General del Sector Primario y Recursos Naturales Renovables, la Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente y la Comisión Nacional del Agua. 11. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 12. Instituto Politécnico Nacional. 13. Confederación Nacional Cooperativa Pesquera, S.C. de R.L. 14. Cámara Nacional de las Industrias Pesquera y Acuícola. 15. Unión de Armadores del Litoral de Océano Pacífico, A.C. 16. Industria Mexicana de Equipo Marino, S.A. de C.V. 17. Productora Nacional de Redes, S. A. de C.V. 18. Colegio Nacional de Profesionales de la Pesca, A.C. 19. Federación Nacional de Pesca Deportiva, A.C.
External or International evaluation of the management system does not exist formally. However, international organization such OECD or FAO regularly review Mexican Fisheries policies and statistics (v.g. OECD Review of Fisheries: Policies and Summary Statistics 2013 (DOI:10.1787/rev_fish-2013- en).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 73 of 264
6. Evaluation Procedure
6.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment
For this assessment, harmonization is not required for P1 or P2. Harmonization is only required for the “Governance and Policy” component under Principle 3.
Principle 1: At the time of publication of this report the Opisthonema spp. stock complex under assessment does not overlap with any other MSC certified fishery. There are two other MSC units in the northern Gulf of California, which are part of the Sonoran small pelagic fishery. The Pacific sardine unit was certified in 2011. The thread herring unit, targets the same biological unit of the Opisthonema spp. complex as the fishery under evaluation in this report. At the time that this fishery was scored, the northern thread herring UoA was an Expedited P1 species in assessment, where no final scores were available for harmonization via a Public Comment Draft Report or subsequent iterations of reports.
Future assessments of the thread herring unit from the Northern Gulf of California will consider results from this assessment, but will need not be fully harmonized given the differences in northern and southern species composition and the reality that the two areas are functionally managed as separate stocks. In Sonoran waters, the Opisthonema complex is disproportionately dominated by O. libertate, with small amounts of O. bulleri and O. medirastre present. For this reason, this stock is managed largely for O. libertate, and for MSC assessment purposes, O. bulleri and O. medirastre are considered IPI species. In contrast, the southern complex, the three species comprise more equivalent proportions of the overall complex, and are officially managed as a complex and under MSC are assessed as a stock complex. As the Sonoran small pelagic unit and this Sinaloa & Nayarit-based unit are not managed as the same stock it is not required to harmonize on P1.
Principle 2: There are no other MSC-certified fisheries that fall within the geographical range of the Southern Gulf of California small pelagics, Purse Seine Fishery, Sinaloa & Nayarit fishery. As this fishery is certified against CR v1.3, it is not yet subject to the MSC cumulative P2 impacts approach.
Principle 3:
Governance and Policy component: there are several other MSC certified fisheries in Mexico. All fisheries in Mexico are subject to Federal regulatory mandates under the overarching Fisheries Law (LGPAS). This law defines the general long term goal of sustainability and the organizational and procedural structure to achieve the general goal. Elements in Principle 3 that pertain to the general goals, governance and management that are common to all fisheries in Mexico should therefore have consistent background, scores and rationales.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 74 of 264
Fisheries Specific Management System: The Southern Gulf of California small pelagics fishery shares elements of the Fisheries Specific Management System Component (3.2.1-3.2.4) with Northern Gulf of California, Mexico – Sonoran sardine that was certified in 2011. Small Pelagic fisheries in the Gulf of California are regulated by NOM-PESC-003-1993 and the Management Plan for small pelagics. However, there are several management elements, such as research that are conducted separately for both the northern and southern Gulf of California fisheries. Scores for the Mexican tuna fishery were considered for P3 harmonization but it should be noted that scores for this fishery consider both national management and management by Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission as the relevant Regional Fisheries Management Organization. All of the other fisheries in Tables 12 and 13 are exclusively domestically managed.
Table 12. Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization.
Principles Relevant Conformity Assessment Fishery Status to Harmonization Body Northern Gulf of California, 4th Annual Mexico, Sonoran Surveillance onsite, P3 SCS Global Services Pacific sardine 2015 Certified 2012, 2nd Sian Ka’an and Banco Surveillance Chinchorro Biosphere Reserves P3 MRAG completed August spiny lobster 2015 (RBF) Northeastern Tropical Pacific In assessment, PCDR Purse Seine Yellowfin and P3 SCS Global Services released Skipjack Tuna Fishery Certified 2003, Red rock lobster, Baja Announced 2nd Re- P3 SCS Global Services California, Mexico Assessment October 2015
Table 13. Alignment of Principle 3 Scores for Harmonization includes only national level governance and policy relevant PIs.
Sian Ka’an and Northeastern Banco Chinchorro Red rock lobster, Southern Gulf of Gulf of California, Tropical Pacific PI Biosphere Baja California, California small Mexico – sardine Purse Seine YFT Reserves spiny Mexico pelagics & SKJ tuna lobster 3.1.1 95 80 95 80 90 3.1.2 85 85 85 85 85 3.1.3 100 100 100 100 100 3.1.4 85 80 85 80 80
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 75 of 264
6.2 Assessment Methodologies This assessment was conducted by SCS Global Services, an ASI-accredited, and MSC Conformity Assessment Body. The fishery was assessed using the MSC Certification Requirements Version 1.3, January 14 2013 and the reporting template used in this report is also V1.3. The default assessment tree was modified for stock complexes: these modifications were consulted via an announcement posted on the MSC website on March 6, 2015 for the fishery found at: https://www.msc.org/track-a- fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/in-assessment/pacific/southern-gulf-of-california-thread- herring/assessment-downloads-1/20150306_AT_HER498.pdf No comments were received on the proposed modified tree.
The CAB has confirmed with MSC Fisheries Assessment Managers that the release of V2.0 FCR (April 1, 2015) and V2.1 GCR (Sept 1, 2015) are not binding for this fishery for the fishery’s full assessment as it initiated the assessment process prior to April 1, 2015. FCR V2.0 and GCR V2.1 (or the most recent version of the standard that is in effect at the time) process will be used during the fishery’s first annual surveillance audit.
6.3 Evaluation Processes and Techniques
6.3.1 Site Visit
The assessment team selected visit sites and interviewees based on information needed to assess management operations of the unit of assessment. The client group and other relevant stakeholders helped identify and contact fisheries management, research, and compliance representatives. Before the site visit and meetings were conducted, an audit plan was provided to the client and relevant stakeholders. The on-site meetings took place April 8th to 10th, 2015 in the Mazatlán, Sinaloa, Mexico. The assessment team also met with representatives from several institutions, including INAPESCA, CONAPESCA and CRIP1. The assessment team visited the Client’s office, Maz Industrial, agency offices including CONAPESCA national headquarters and INAPESCA’s Regional Centre in Mazatlán, Mexico. Meetings of the team occurred both at the onset of the onsite and following all meetings, at Los Pinos Guesthouse, Mazatlán. The onsite meetings were organized into four main time blocks, across three days, to address the main topics for the assessment (Table 14). Participants at the onsite meeting are listed in Table 15Error! Reference source not found.. Time for a dedicated stakeholder meeting was also reserved in the audit plan, but SCS received no indication of stakeholders with interest or concerns to discuss with the team
1 INAPESCA, CONAPESCA and CRIP
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 76 of 264
Table 14. Key meetings and locations for onsite meeting that took place in April 8th to 10th 2015 in in Sinaloa, Mexico, for the MSC assessment of the Southern Gulf of California Small Pelagics fishery.
Meeting number Date Location Topic
Bycatch, observer program, 1 April 8th Client Office reference points, procedures for science advice.
Cooperation mechanisms, CONAPESCA offices, management plan, control 2 April 9th, 2014 (am) Mazatlán rule, Publication of NOM, harvest control measures
INAPESCA CRIP, Monitoring, size limits, 3 April 9th, 2014 (pm) Mazatlán observer program Team discussion, preliminary Los Pinos Guesthouse, 4 April 10th, 2014 scoring, compilation of Mazatlán document requests
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 77 of 264
Table 15. 2014 Meeting attendees by organization for the onsite meeting for the Southern Gulf of California Small Pelagics fishery.
Name Organization and Title
Adrián Salgado Vargas CONAPESCA, Director de Normatividad Alejandro Zapata Lozano CONAPESCA, Director de Prevención CONAPESCA, Director General De Planeación Programación Antonio Garza Y Evaluación Armando Coppel Maz Sardina S.A., Director General Carlos Alvarez SCS, Team member David Becerra Maz Sardina, Técnico de pesca CONAPESCA, Jefa de Departamento de Elaboración de Edaysi Bucio Bustos Normas Pesqueras Francia Zamora Maz Sardina, Técnico de pesca Guillermo Ley Gerente de flota de Maz Sardina Guillermo Rodriguez INAPESCA, Subdirector de Manejo de Recursos Pesqueros Isabel C. Reyes Robles CONAPESCA, Directora Asuntos Internacionales José Jesús Dosal CONAPESCA, Subdirector de Normalización Pesquera Laura Garcia Barrio Maz Industrial, Gerente Aseguramiento de Calidad Manuel O. Nevarez INAPESCA-CRIP, Investigator Titular Mercedes Jacob Cervantes INAPESCA, Responsable Programa Pelágicos Menores Oscar Sosa SCS, Team member Ramón Rendón Martínez Maz Sardina, Técnico de pesca Raul Villaseñor CONAPESCA Roberto Vallarta INAPESCA Sian Morgan SCS, Team Leader
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 78 of 264
6.3.2 Stakeholder Consultations and Due Diligence
SCS identified relevant stakeholders for this fishery: many were those previously involved in ongoing MSC assessment processes for the Sonora small pelagic fishery. A list of 20 individuals in approximately 15 organizations was compiled including representatives from the government, private sector and non- profit sectors working at regional and national levels (Table 16). The main form of communication to stakeholders has been via email to personal or organizational email addresses. Stakeholders notified in the list were given ongoing notifications of progress at the following milestones in assessment:
. Announcement of fishery entering assessment and team nominated – 23 December 2014 . Assessment tree notification – 6 March, 2015 . Onsite visits cheduled – 6 March 2015 . Revised Timeline- 8 September 2015 . Request for additional information at delay of PCDR . Publication of PCDR
The only stakeholder comment received was the MSC Technical Oversight (Section 12. Appendix 3. Stakeholder Submissions)
Table 16. List of stakeholder organizations contacted for the MSC Assessment of the Southern Gulf of California Small Pelagics fishery.
Organization Type Instituto Nacional de Pesca(INP) Government Institution/Research COBI NGO INAPESCA Government Institution/Research UC Davis Academic Institution/Research Universidad Veracruzana Academic Institution/Research Conservacion de Islas NGO WWF NGO EDF NGO Canainpes Industry Fundación Carlos Slim, A.C. NGO Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste S.C. (CIBNOR) Research Institute CONAPESCA Goverment Institution
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 79 of 264
6.3.3 Scoring Process The fishery entered assessment on 23 December 2014. The default assessment tree was modified for stock complexes: these modifications were consulted via an announcement posted on the MSC website on March 6, 2015. No stakeholder comments were received.
The team conducted an onsite visit from April 8-10th, described in sections 6.3.1 Site Visit. Scoring was initiated during the site visit and completed iteratively through phone calls, emails and Skype teleconferences thereafter. For scoring, the assessment team followed guidelines in MSC CR v1.3 27.10 “Scoring the fishery”. For those PIs scored in increments of five points, the team followed MSC guidelines provided in section 27.10.3.
Decision rules for final outcome The decision rule for MSC certification is as follows: . No PIs score below 60 (cannot receive certification) . The aggregate score for each Principle, rounded to the nearest whole number, is 80 or above . The aggregate score for each Principle is calculated by taking the weighted average score for each Principle followed by the average of all the Principle scores (see Table 6.2 p. 86).
The team finalized scoring and submitted the Client Draft to Maz Sardina November 2015. Following initial receipt of the client draft of the report, new and relevant information for the assessment process was submitted by the client group in December, 2015. In February, 2016 the team re-scored relevant performance indicators based on the updated documentation and a second Client Draft was submitted to the client, in which all three Principles obtained a score over 80. The fishery received a total of 15 scoring-issue level conditions within 14 performance indicators. Rationales were cross read by team members and SCS staff for production of the client draft report. Scoring was completed by consensus through team meetings in person and by phone, as well as by exchanging rationales by email and draft score and report sharing.
The review of additional information and, efforts made by the assessment team to harmonize scoring of this fishery with the Gulf of California, Mexico, sardine and thread herring fishery based in Sonora, delayed publication of the public draft of the assessment report, as the alignment required the limited time of a team member shared among the three units. SCS informed the client and stakeholders of the changes in the timelines via email and announcements posted to the MSC website on 24 March 2016.
From early March 2016 through April and May, the client fishery worked with SCS to generate an acceptable client action plan, which was structured at the level of scoring issues (versus performance indicators).
Based on comments from peer reviewers the team modified content related to Principle 3 adjusting the following scores: 3.1.1 from 90 to 85 and 3.1.2 from 85 to 90. These changes were then submitted to the client to review prior to the publication of the PCDR. The PCDR was mounted June 30, 2016 and subject
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 80 of 264
to a 30 day stakeholder comment period that terminated on August 4, 2016. No stakeholder comments were received. After the PCDR SCS received a Technical Oversight from MSC for the traceability section, which was modified accordingly. For PI 1.2.2 the team revised the rationale and modified the conditions and CAP, these changes were approved by the client prior to the publication of the Final report. The report was submitted to MSC for publication on September 1, 2016.
Variances were requested to MSC on September 03, 2015 and February 23, 2017 for a timeline deviation. On February 23, 2017 the variance also requested the assessment continues under version 1.3 in order to facilitate harmonization with Northern Gulf of California sardines.
The following table presents the scoring elements considered in the assessment of this fishery, as first displayed in the Overview of Non-target Catch section in the Principle 2 Background.
Table 17. Summary of Non-target Species as Categorized for Evaluation. Categorization of all non-target species encountered by the Southern Gulf of California small pelagic fishery. Main retained species (MSC) used in scoring are given below along with the main reason for including these species as “main” in assessment, and their categorization relative to listing processes used to classify species as ETP in the MSC system.
Performance MSC Reason for Common name Scientific name Indicators Classification classification Cetengraulis >5% of landed volume 2.1.x Bocona Main retained mysticetus (5.7%) Aetobatus 2.1.x Spotted eagle ray Main retained Vulnerable life history narinari 2.1.x Devil ray Mobula japonica Main retained Vulnerable life history
Rhioptera 2.2.x Pacific cownose ray Main bycatch Vulnerable life history steindachneri Pelecanus Listed by national 2.3.x Brown pelican ETP occidentalis regulations Listed by national 2.3.x Heerman’s gull Larus heermanni ETP regulations Listed by national 2.3.x Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncates ETP regulations Listed by national 2.3.x Common dolphin Delphinus delphis ETP regulations
2.5x Pelagic ecosystem
2.5x Estuarine ecoystem
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 81 of 264
7. Traceability
7.1 Eligibility Date
The current target eligibility date is September 26, 2016. This date is the estimated date for certification. This target eligibility date is only applicable to canned products and excludes any fishmeal or fish oil products from this UoA. SCS has concluded that fishmeal and/or fish oil products from the UoA are not eligible to be sold as MSC-certified or carry the ecolabel. This determination shall be revised in the first surveillance expected to take place on September 2017.
Currently the fishery has in place a system that generally separates small pelagic species-based sets into different wells in the holds of vessels. This separation system is deemed adequate for canned products but it is not sufficient to fully separate MSC-eligible (Opisthonema spp.) from non-MSC eligible non-small pelagic retained minor species, and thus cannot be used for fish meal products.
At the moment the client does not intend to use the ecolabel on the product, but the client has confirmed their interest to use the eco-label in the future, for both their canned and fish meal products. Prior to use of the MSC eco-label for their fish meal products the fishery would be required to demonstrate implementation of a working system capable of fully and cleanly separating MSC-eligible from non-MSC eligible catch.
7.2 Traceability within the Fishery Vessels in the Maz Sardina fleet each have four to six wells in their holds, where the number of wells varies depending on vessel size, which are named according to their location on the vessel (i.e. port and starboard sides). The majority of sets are species-specific, targeting thread herring or bocona: in these cases the catch is stored separately by species in different wells. When there are non-target retained fish species mixed into holds with thread herring or bocona, these are marked as “Crinuda (thread herring) and fauna or Bocona and fauna”. Therefore sets are generally, but not fully segregated between MSC-eligible and non-MSC-eligible catches. Information on volumes and wells for different species are recorded under the “General Observations” section in the “Vessel logbook” (Diario de Maquina) by the on board motor engineer. When there is a surplus of catch, transshipment occurs exclusively between vessels within the Maz Sardina fleet, all of which are within the UoC. Transshipment events are also documented under the “General Observations” section in the “Vessel logbook” (Diario de Maquina), as required by the Navy. There is no processing at sea.
Management systems related to traceability are in place and documented via the Vessel Logbook and landing ticket (Aviso de Arribo de Embarcaciones). The landing ticket records information on the date of landing, name of vessel, fishing area, fishing permit and volume for the different species (i.e. thread herring and bocona).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 82 of 264
The Maz Sardina fleet and Maz Industrial processing plant are affiliate companies under the umbrella of the PINSA Group, and thus considered to be part of a vertically integrated supply chain. When landed onto vessels, fish are owned by Maz Sardina. The first change of ownership occurs at the point of unloading, when receiving for Maz Industrial takes on ownership of the fish, as the product moves into processing.
7.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody SCS has determined that: - Canned products from the UoA are eligible to be sold as MSC-certified or carry the MSCecolabel, and. - Fish meal products from the UoA are NOT eligible to be sold as MSC-certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. This determination shall remain in force until revised in a subsequent assessment.
Mixing risk in wells: At the vessel level, Maz Sardina maintains sets that are generally made up of like small pelagic species, kept in distinct holds. The three thread herring species targeted by this purse seine fishery would not be separated within wells, as they are not visually distinguishable. This lack of separation poses no traceability concerns as all three in this complex are eligible to carry the MSC label. Traceability concerns do arise as to whether the three indistinguishable thread herring species are fully separated from other small pelagics or other minor retained species: according to the client, thread herring is separable from other small pelagic species, but not from other non-target minor retained species. Consequently, fish meal products contain a small amount of non-target retained species. In order to be eligible to enter further chains of custody. The efficacy of the separation process, currently described to occur when catch is separated into species-specified wells in vessel holds, should also be verified by Chain of Custody auditors upon unloading at shore-based processing facilities.
Mixing risk at transshipment: at present, the fishery conducts transshipment of product at sea, however, the team concludes that the risk of product from outside the UoC entering the supply chain is minimal, and that the fishery has in place a system to assure that only product from within the Unit of Assessment/Certification is received and there are no other local purse seine vessels that use Mazatlán as a home port.
Mixing risk at unloading: According to the client, the majority of sets are species-specific and so far no need has emerged to implement a sorting mechanism upon receiving, to segregate thread herring species from bocona2. The assessment team has therefore determined that chain of custody needs to begin at the point of offload to the shore-based processing facility. The system must be able to demonstrate the ability to cleanly separate all MSC-eligible species (Opisthonema libertate, O. bulleri, O. medirastre) from non-eligible species (Bocona and any other small pelagics or non-small pelagics in the catch) prior to processing for canning or production of fishmeal. Chain of custody auditors should also assure that systems are in place to assure appropriate tracking and separation of product from non Maz Sardina vessels that land small pelagics in Mazatlán, but that may have been fished outside of the UoA.
2 Following guidelines for the IFFO RS Standard, Maz Industrial separates bocona and thread herring fishmeal with different lot numbers.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 83 of 264
7.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody
No species in this fishery were categorized as IPI. The three Opisthonema species in this assessment are assessed as a stock complex via a modified assessment tree and were not assessed as IPI species because all three species comprise >15% of the catch in any given year. Relative percentages of the three Opisthonema species in catches fluctuate from year to year. (See further comments on Section 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background, p.16)
There are over 50 different non target minor retained species (See Appendix 7.3 Species List) which, according to observer data, jointly represent less than 5% of the total volume of the UoA. These species could be considered IPI, however, the CAB in conjunction with the client opted against this option, primarily because of information deficiencies on stock status, reliable data on proportion and weight of catch of these stocks and absence of management measures for several of these species. The CAB recommends that Maz Sardina develops techniques to effectively separate those sets with non-target minor retained species from those sets that are considered “clean” or to develop measures to reduce the proportion of these non-target minor retained species below 2%.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 84 of 264
8. Evaluation Results
8.1 Principle Level Scores
Table 18. Final Principle Scores
Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 80.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 80.7 Principle 3 – Management System 80.4
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 85 of 264
8.2 Summary of Scores
Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Unit of Assessment One Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 90 1.1.2 Reference points 90 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding n/a Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 70 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 70 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 75 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 65 Two Retained species 2.1.1 Outcome 80 2.1.2 Management 75 2.1.3 Information 75 Bycatch species 2.2.1 Outcome 80 2.2.2 Management 75 2.2.3 Information 75 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 100 2.3.2 Management 85 2.3.3 Information 75 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 100 2.4.2 Management 80 2.4.3 Information 80 Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 80 2.5.2 Management 70 2.5.3 Information 80 Three Governance & policy 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 90 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibility 85 3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 Fishery specific mgt. 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 3.2.2 Decision making processes 70 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 60 3.2.4 Research plan 75 3.2.5 Mgt. performance evaluation 75
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 86 of 264
8.3 Summary of Conditions
Improve Performance Condition -ments Indicator
The fishery needs to provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock. A robust stock assessment and a 1 1-1 harvest control rule with agreed outcomes need to be active and 1.2.1a working together towards achieving the harvest strategy objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The target reference point needs to be explicitly determined so that it can 2 1-2 work with the rest of the strategy to achieve its objectives. 1.2.1a The fishery needs to provide evidence that the Harvest Control Rule is 3 1-3 effectively in place to ensure that exploitation rate is reduced as limit 1.2.2a reference points are approached. Present evidence that the harvest control rules for the thread herring 4 1-4 complex are well defined. 1.2.2a
Because stock assessments are key elements of a harvest strategy, and stock assessments require reliable indices of abundance, the acoustic 5 1-7 surveys need to be conducted on a regular basis to feed this important 1.2.3b element of the harvest strategy. These surveys need to be consolidated and their methods refined to be able to support the control rule.
The stock assessment methodology needs to be improved to resolve the current inconsistencies shown between the VPA and Multispecies 6 1-8 Production models. This type of model uncertainty needs to be 1.2.4c accounted for to increase the reliability of the assessment methodology to support the harvest strategy.
7 1-9 The stock assessment must be subject to peer review. 1.2.4e Present evidence that the partial strategy for spotted eagle rays is being 8 2-1 implemented successfully PI 2.1.1a Demonstrate that sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any 9 2-2 increase in risk level for spotted eagle rays and devil rays. PI 2.1.3d
Present evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented 10 2-3 successfully for cownose rays. PI 2.2.2c Demonstrate that sufficient data continues to be collected to detect any 11 2-4 increase in risk to cownose rays. PI 2.2.3d Demonstrate that sufficient information is available to allow fishery 12 2-5 related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated PI 2.3.3a for ETP species. Demonstrate that partial strategy for small pelagics takes into account 13 2-6 PI 2.5.2b available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 87 of 264
on the pelagic ecosystem so as to continue to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. Demonstrate that partial strategy for bycatch takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery 14 2-7 PI 2.5.2b on the estuarine ecosystem so as to continue to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. At each annual audit, the client should provide evidence that the fishery- specific management system applies an effective decision-making 15 3-1 process that resulted in measures and strategies to reach the objectives PI 3.2.2a of the fishery, including actions taken to any wrongdoing during fishing operations.
Demonstrate that the monitoring, control and surveillance system has 16 3-2 an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies, and/or PI 3.2.3a rules. Demonstrate that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and are 17 3-3 PI 3.2.3b consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. Demonstrate some evidence that fishers comply with the management 18 3-4 system and provide information of importance, and that there is no PI 3.2.3cd evidence of systematic non-compliance. Demonstrate that a research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely 19 3-5 PI 3.2.4a information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Demonstrate that the fishery-specific management system is subject to 20 3-6 PI 3.2.5b regular internal and occasional external review.
8.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement
With the information available, the Mexican Southern Gulf of California small pelagics, Purse Seine Fishery meets the minimum requirements for being awarded certification which includes meeting the SG60 for all Performance Indicators and an average score of 80 or greater for all three Principle scores. The team discussed the merits and shortfalls of the fishery and by consensus recommended certification for the fishery. In accordance with MSC Certification Requirements, the report is now open to objection by interested parties for a period of 15 working days from publication of this Final Report with the positive certification determination.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 88 of 264
9. References
Aburto-Oropeza, Octavio, et al. "Mangroves in the Gulf of California increase fishery yields." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105.30 (2008): 10456-10459.
A. Acevedo-Cervantes, J. López-Martínez y E. Ruiz-Villa. 2012. Biomasa y biología reproductiva de especies clave en la fauna de acompañamiento del camarón, en las costas de Sonora, durante un periodo de veda. En: López-Martínez J. y E. Morales- Bojórquez (Eds.). Efectos de la pesca de arrastre en el Golfo de California. Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, S.C. y Fundación Produce Sonora, México, pp. 115-136.
American Cetacean Society 2015. Fact Sheets. http://acsonline.org/fact-sheets/ Accessed October 29, 2015.
Arreguín-Sánchez F. 2015. Pesca y estimación de biomasa remanente de sardina en el mar para sostener la demanda trófica del ecosistema: región central del Golfo de California. Informe de Avance
Audobon 2015. Guide to North American Birds. https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/ Accessed October 29, 2015.
Bourillón, L. y J. Torre. 2012. Áreas marinas protegidas del Golfo de California para mitigar los efectos de la pesca de arrastre en la biodiversidad: Limitaciones y propuesta de nuevo enfoque. En: López-Martínez J. y E. Morales-Bojórquez (Eds.). Efectos de la pesca de arrastre en el Golfo de California. Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, S.C. y Fundación Produce Sonora, México, pp. 399-411
Berry, F. and I. Barret. 1963. Gillraker analysis speciation in thread herring genus Opisthonema. InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission Bulletin 7(2): 110-190.
Cotero Altamirano C.E., Haro H., Enciso Enciso C., y Jacob Cervantes M.L. 2014. Memorias del XXII Taller de Pelágicos Menores. Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 29 pp.
Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo (CONEVAL). 2014. Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca: Ficha de Monitoreo 2014
Cury, Philippe, et al. "Small pelagics in upwelling systems: patterns of interaction and structural changes in “wasp-waist” ecosystems." ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 57.3 (2000): 603-618.
Del Monte-Luna , S. E., Lluch-Cota , C. J., Salvadeo & D. Lluch-Belda. (2011) Ecosystem-Level Effects Of The Small Pelagics Fishery In The Gulf Of California. CICIMAR Oceánides 26(1): 51-62
DOF. 1988. Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección del Ambiente. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 28 de enero de 1988.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 89 of 264
DOF. 1992. Ley Federal Sobre Metrología y Normalización. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1 de Julio de 1992.
DOF. 1994. Ley Federal de Procedimientos Administrativos. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 4 de agosto de 1994.
DOF. 2007. Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 24 de Julio de 2007.
DOF. 2012a. Acuerdo por le que se da a conocer la actualización de la Carta Nacional Pesquera. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación 24 de agosto de 2012.
DOF. 2012b. Acuerdo por el que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarelas y afines) del Noroeste de México. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación 8 de noviembre de 2012.
DOF. 2012c. Acuerdo por el que se expiden las Reglas para la creación, integración, organización y operación del Comité Consultivo Nacional de Normalización Agroalimentaria. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 26 de noviembre de 2012.
Doode-Matsumoto, O.S. 1999. Los claros y oscuros de la pesquería de sarina en Sonora: contradicciones para un desarrollo equilibrado. CIESAS. 375 pp.
Essington T and Pláganyi EE (2013) Model and data adequacy for Marine Stewardship Council key low trophic level species designation and criteria and a proposed new assessment index. Marine Stewardship Council Science Series 1: 171 – 191.
Garcia, A. Gabriela and Gastelum N. Ernesto. 2015. Informe Técnico de las Especies Asociadas a la Pesqueria de Pelagicos Menores del Golfo de California. COBI
Hernández-Padilla, J. C., Ruíz-Barreriro, T. M., y Arreguín-Sánchez F. 2015. Papel Ecológico de las sardinas Ophistonema libertate y Centegraulis mysticetus en el ecosistema sur del Golfo de California, México. Draft
IUCN 2015. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-3.
Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Vallarta Zárate J.R.F., y Becerra Arroyo D. 2013a. Memorias del XXI Taller de Pelágicos Menores. Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 34 pp.
Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Vallarta Zárate J.R.F., Payán Alejo J., Becerra Arroyo D., y de León Herrera R. 2013b. Pesquería de pelágicos menores en el sur del Golfo de California; Análisis biológico- pesquero. Reporte Interno. INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 93 pp.
Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Vallarta Zárate J.R.F., Payán Alejo J., Becerra Arroyo D., y de León Herrera R. 2013c. Resultados del programa de observadores a bordo de la flota sardinera del sur del Golfo de California 2012-2013.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 90 of 264
Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Vallarta-Zárate J.R.F., Payán-Alejo J., Becerra-Arroyo D. y R. de León-Herrera. 2013d. Pesquería de pelágicos menores en el sur del Golfo de California. Análisis biológico- pesquero. Mazatlán, Sinaloa, Centro Regional de Investigación Pesquera, Mazatlán, INAPESCA, SAGARPA. 100 pp.
Jacob-Cervantes M.L. 2015a. Estimación de la biomasa y regla de control para el manejo de la pesquería de sardina bocona (Cetengraulis mysticetus) en el sur del Golfo de California. Reporte Interno. INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 7 pp.
Jacob-Hernandez M.L. 2015b. Biomasa crítica y su aplicación en la regla de control para el manejo de la pesquería de sardina crinuda (Opisthonema spp.) en el sur del Golfo de California. Reporte Interno. INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 6 pp.
Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Becerra Arroyo D., Vallarta Zarate J.R.F., Rendón Martínez J.R., y Payán Alejo J. 2015c. Resultados del programa de observadores a bordo de la flota sardinera del sur del Golfo de California 2013-2014.
Jacob Cervantes M, J R Vallarta-Zárate, J R Rendón-Martínez Y D Becerra-Arroyo. 2015d. Interacción entre la actividad pesquera de la flota sardinera y las características texturales del fondo marino del sur del golfo de California. In Informe de investigación (documento interno), p. 31. Mazatlán, Sinaloa: SAGARPA-INP-CRIP-MAZ
Jacob Cervantes M, J R Vallarta-Zárate, J R Rendón-Martínez, D Becerra-Arroyo Y J Payán-Alejo. 2015e. Efecto de la pesquería de peces pelágicos menores sobre el ecosistema del sur del golfo de California. In Informe de investigación (documento interno), p. 100. Mazatlán, Sinaloa: SAGARPA-INP-CRIP-MAZ.
Jaques, D. 2014. Brown pelican Injury Prevention Project: Northern California Harbors. Pacific Eco Logic. 41 pp.
López-Martínez, J., E. Herrera-Valdivia, N. Hernández-Saavedra, E. Serviere- Zaragoza, J. Rodríguez- Romero, C. H. Rábago-Quiroz, G. Padilla-Arredondo, S. Burrola-Sánchez, R. Morales-Azpeitia, S. Pedrín-Aviles, L. F. Enríquez-Ocaña, M. O. Nevárez-Martínez, A. Acevedo-Cervantes, E. Morales- Bojórquez, M. R. López- Tapia y J. Padilla-Serrato. 2012. Efectos de la pesca de arrastre del camarón en el Golfo de California. Síntesis de las investigaciones desarrolladas por el Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste S. C. En: López-Martínez J. y E. Morales- Bojórquez (Eds.). Efectos de la pesca de arrastre en el Golfo de California. Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, S.C. y Fundación Produce Sonora, México, pp. 15-25.
Lyle-Fritch, L. P. y A. Ruiz-Luna. 1997. Sinopsis sobre la biología de la sardina crinuda (Opisthonema spp.). Centro Regional de Investigación Pesquera Mazatlán, Sinaloa. 35 p.
National Research Council 1992. Dolphins and the Tuna Industry. National Academy Press.
Nevarez-Martínez, M.O., Villalobos, H., González-Máynez, V.E., Santos-Molina, J.P., Valdez-Pelayo, A., Curiel-Bernal, M., Jacob-Cervantes, M., VallartaZárate, J.R., Payán-Alejo, J. 2013. Evaluación Hidroacústica de la Sardina Crinuda (Opisthonema spp.) en el Sur del Golfo de California. Mazatlán, Sinaloa, Centro Regional de Investigación Pesquera, Mazatlán. INAPESCA, SAGARPA.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 91 of 264
Gonzalez-Maynez V. H. Villalobos, M.O. Nevarez-Martinez, M. Jacob-Cervantes, A. Valdez-Pelayo, J. Payan-Alejo, D.Becerra-Arroyo, R. de Leon-Herrera and C. Navarro-Bojorquez. 2015. Evaluacion acústica de sardina crinuda en las costas de Sinaloa y Nayarit durante la primavera de 2014. Mazatlán, Sinaloa, Centro Regional de Investigación Pesquera, Mazatlán. INAPESCA, SAGARPA.
Sánchez, A., Aguíñiga, S., Lluch-Belda, D., Camalich-Carpizo J., Del Monte-Luna P., Ponce-Díaz, G. and F. Arreguín-Sánchez Geoquímica sedimentaria en áreas de pesca de arrastre y no arrastre de fondo en la costa de Sinaloa-Sonora, Golfo de California. Bol. Soc. Geol. Mex [online]. 2009, vol.61, n.1, pp. 25-30 . Available at: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405- 33222009000100004&lng=es&nrm=iso.
Stinson, D. W. 2014. Draft periodic status review for the Brown Pelican. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 30 + iv pp.
UCDavis Veterinary Medicine. Impacts of Oil on Seabirds. Available Online. Retrieved on 10/28/2015 from: http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/owcn/oiled_wildlife/impacts_to_seabirds.cfm.
Ulloa, R., J. Torre, L. Bourillón, A. Gondor y N. Alcantar. 2006. Planeación ecorregional para la conservación marina: Golfo de California y costa occidental de Baja California Sur. Informe final a The Nature Conservancy. Guaymas (México): Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C., 153 pp.
Vallarta-Zarate, J.R. 2012. Distribución y abundancia de la sardina crinuda (Opistonema spp) en el sur del Golfo de California asociada a la variabilidad ambiental durante el período 1996-2010. Professional thesis. National Autonomous University of Mexico. School of Marine Sciences and Limnology. Mazatlan, Sinaloa. 133 pp.
Vallarta-Zarate J.R. y M. Jacob-Cervantes. 2014. La pesca de sardina crinuda (Opisthonema spp.) del sur del golfo de California y su relación con la variabilidad ambiental. En: L. M. Flores-Campaña, R. E. Moran-Angulo Y C. Karam-Quiñones, (eds.). Sinaloa ante el Cambio Climático Global. Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa. Culiacán, Sinaloa, pp. 185-203.
Watson, W. and E.M. Sandknop. 1996. Clupeidae: herrings. Pp 159-171. In: H.G. Moser. The early stages of fished in the California current region. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations. Atlas No. 33. La Jolla, CA. 1517 pp.
Wells, R. and M. Scott. 2002. Bottlenose Dolphins. In: Perrin, W., B. Würsig and J. Thewissen. Pp 122- 127. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press. 1414 pp.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 92 of 264
10. Appendices
Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale
Principle 1 Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability PI 1.1.1M of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that There is a high degree of
is above the point the stock is above the certainty that the stock is where recruitment point where above the point where would be impaired. recruitment would be recruitment would be
Guidepost impaired. impaired. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y) The two recent stock assessments conducted by INAPESCA are considered works in progress which require attention to several critical aspects. The results from the assessment using VPA, which aggregates the three Opisthonema species, differ from estimates from the multispecies approach because of reasons that have not been discussed yet. It is however revealing that assessments concur that fishing has had little to no effect on the actual biomass of the whole complex, or for each Opisthonema species separately. The multispecies assessment produced Kobe plots indicating that biomass of each species has always been far above the level producing MSY and has being exploited at rates that are far below the level associated to MSY. Adding favourable environmental conditions, the biomass trends are either stable or increasing and no indication that the stock could be near the point where recruitment would be impaired.
The conclusion is that although the two stock assessments are not entirely consistent, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.
ification
Just This outcome meets the standard at SG100. b The stock is at or There is a high degree of fluctuating around its certainty that the stock has
target reference point. been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference
Guidepost point, over recent years.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 93 of 264
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability PI 1.1.1M of recruitment overfishing Met? (Y) (N) Considering that the BAC is defined to work as a LRP and that F has been below
퐹푀푆푌 , which is used to compute the BAC, it should follow that the fishery is operating around its target reference point. However, the OY, which is the target defined in the SPMP, is only loosely specified as a quantity “lower than the BAC”, but how much lower has not been explicitly defined nor has the associated F been presented. It is difficult then to assert that the stock is fluctuating around a reference point that has not been presented. Because the Kobe plots in the multispecies approach place the stock far to the right in terms of biomass and far 푭 Justification below the 푴푺풀, the team concludes that SI b can be approved at SG80. References
Stock Status relative to Reference Points
Value of reference Current stock status relative to Type of reference point point reference point Target Optimum Yield: A Not determined yet. Unknown, but based on LRP reference fraction of the being 퐹푀푆푌, and current F point Biologically Acceptable lower than the LRP, it is Catch assumed that it would satisfy the requirement.
Limit 퐹푀푆푌 A generic value of 0.25 Highly variable, under the LRP. reference is applied to all small point pelagics in Mexico according to the Management Plan
Kobe plots for A) O. libertate; B) O. medirastre; C) O. bulleri and D) C. mysticetus. Notice that bocona (C. mysticetus) includes years in which
biomass was under 퐵푀푆푌, even when F was always well below
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 94 of 264
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability PI 1.1.1M of recruitment overfishing
퐹푀푆푌, reflecting a possible change in K. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2
PI 1.1.2M Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock complex Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generic limit and target Reference points are reference points are appropriate for the
based on justifiable and stock and can be reasonable practice estimated. appropriate for the
Guidepost species category. Met? (Y) (Y)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 95 of 264
PI 1.1.2M Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock complex The Small Pelagics Management Plan does not explicitly identify limit and target reference points, but it states that overfishing occurs if catch exceeds the Biologically Acceptable Catch (BAC). The Optimum Yield (OY) is calculated as a fraction of BAC, where BAC operates as a LRP based on a harvest rate
approximately equal to 퐹푀푆푌, therefore managing the stock at the OY must strengthen the strategy to avoid overfishing. In practice, it is 퐹푀푆푌 that operates as the reference point and assessments compare it to estimated F values. The value of the LRP has been estimated for Pacific sardine, Sardinops sagax, and is usually applied to all small pelagics although the Management Plan indicates that the HR could be between 5 and 25%. Although the OY which is here assumed to be the TRP is defined as a fraction of the BAC, it has not been calculated and there are no guidelines on how to obtain it. This could represent an impediment to meet the requirements at SG80. However, the team observed the following in the Guidance to the MSC CR. GCB2.3.3 says: a management strategy based solely around a limit reference point shall imply that there is a target reference point close to or at BMSY (or some other measure or surrogate that maintains the stock at high productivity), and at a level that is well above the limit reference point. And further adds: There may be situations where the limit reference point is set higher than the point at which there is an appreciable risk that recruitment is impaired. Where this results in more precautionary management, the SG100 statement about “following consideration of relevant precautionary issues” would apply. Three relevant aspects are considered: 1) We interpreted that the intent of this PI is to maintain stocks at high productivity; 2) The Guidance makes it clear that an implicit TRP should be close to or at Bmsy and well above the LRP; 3) If the LRP is set higher than PRI, then high scores can be applied. Under these conditions, any implicit TRP would meet the requirements of the standard.
The team concluded that the reference points as defined in the SPMP are aimed to maintain high productivity of the stock; that using the control rule ensures that the stock will be above MSY and well above PRI.
Justification The fishery meets the standard at SG80. b The limit reference The limit reference point is point is set above the set above the level at which level at which there there is an appreciable risk of
is an appreciable risk impairing reproductive of impairing capacity following reproductive consideration of
Guidepost capacity. precautionary issues. Met? (Y) (Y)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 96 of 264
PI 1.1.2M Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock complex In the Management Plan, the BAC is a quantity computed based on a harvest rate that can be set at values between 5 and 25% of the estimated biomass. In practice however, the BAC has been computed based on a fishing mortality rate that is slightly under the estimated value producing the MSY for the Pacific sardine. The BAC is described to function as a LRP, an approach that places the level of recruitment impairment far from the established limit. Given that MSC requires that the TRP has to be consistent with MSY, whereas the LRP has to be lower. If a management system defines its LRP at MSY, then the approach is considered
Justification precautionary and meets the standard at SG100. c The target reference The target reference point is point is such that the such that the stock is stock is maintained maintained at a level
at a level consistent consistent with BMSY or some
with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with measure or surrogate similar intent or outcome, or with similar intent or a higher level, and takes into outcome. account relevant
precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of
Guidepost certainty. Met? (Y) (N) In the SPFMP, the TRP is defined as a level of exploitation that is below MSY. The TRP, called Optimum Yield is defined as a fraction of the BAC that is considered to be a LRP. Under this definition, the TRP aims to keep the stock at precautionary level that is above the Bmsy and meets the standard at SG80. In theory, the TRP in the Mexican small pelagic fisheries is precautionary because
it is defined as a fraction of an LRP that is set up as a function of 퐹푀푆푌. However, the fraction of the BAC that would determine the value of OY has not been defined yet, therefore, it cannot be said to account for the ecological role of the
Justification stock with a high degree of certainty and does not meet the standard at SG100. d For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference
point takes into account the ecological role of the
Guidepost stock.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 97 of 264
PI 1.1.2M Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock complex Met? (Not relevant) n/a
Justificatio n References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3
Where the stock complex or any component of the complex is depleted, there is an explicit rationale describing how changes in the harvest level intend to PI 1.1.3M rebuild any depleted component of the complex, or the overall complex, within a specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted, depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to strategies, which have be rebuilding stocks
a reasonable continuously and there is expectation of strong evidence that rebuilding success, are in place. will be complete within the
Guidepost specified timeframe. Met? (Not Scored) (Not Scored) The stock is determined not to be depleted.
Justif icatio n
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 98 of 264
Where the stock complex or any component of the complex is depleted, there is an explicit rationale describing how changes in the harvest level intend to PI 1.1.3M rebuild any depleted component of the complex, or the overall complex, within a specified timeframe b A rebuilding A rebuilding timeframe The shortest practicable timeframe is specified is specified for the rebuilding timeframe is for the depleted stock depleted stock that is specified which does not that is the shorter of the shorter of 20 years exceed one generation time for 30 years or 3 times its or 2 times its the depleted stock. generation time. For generation time. For cases where 3 cases where 2
generations is less generations is less than than 5 years, the 5 years, the rebuilding rebuilding timeframe timeframe is up to 5
Guidepost is up to 5 years. years. Met? (Not Scored) (Not Scored) (Not Scored) Not relevant
Justificatio n c Monitoring is in place There is evidence that to determine whether they are rebuilding the rebuilding stocks, or it is highly strategies are effective likely based on in rebuilding the stock simulation modelling within a specified or previous
timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a
Guidepost specified timeframe. Met? (Not Scored) (Not Scored)
t
Not relevant
Justi fica ion References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: n/a CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 99 of 264
There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place that is applied to PI 1.2.1M individual components or to the entire stock complex Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state responsive to the state of the stock management of the stock and the stock and is designed to objectives reflected in elements of the achieve stock management the target and limit harvest strategy work objectives reflected in the reference points. together towards target and limit reference
achieving management points. objectives reflected in the target and limit
Guidepost reference points. Met? (Y) (N) (N) The harvest strategy for the fishery of small pelagics is outlined in the Management Plan. Specific mechanisms in the Plan operate such that its definition of “sustainable levels” is consistent with MSY. The main reference point (a LRP) is established and expected to keep biomass above the level producing MSY. This works through use of a control rule applied to species such as thread herring that are subject to active management. The control rule is also built with the intent to
keep a minimum amount of biomass unfished to protect the stock. If the minimum biomass is reached; the fleet is expected to stop fishing.
Justification Monitoring occurs before the season starts, checking the fishing mortality of the last season and comparing it with the reference point. As the season progresses, the proportion of juveniles is monitored but fishing is not allowed to start if adults are in full reproductive state or if there is still a large percentage of juveniles. The monitoring strategy is not inscribed in official documents but works through informal agreements between authorities and fishers meeting periodically. When reference points are exceeded, the Plan establishes the application of emergent actions that include temporal or area closures, modifying size limits or changing allowable catch and restrictions on fishing effort.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 100 of 264
There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place that is applied to PI 1.2.1M individual components or to the entire stock complex By Law, the Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (INAPESCA) is responsible for scientific research applied towards the making of management decisions. The Management Plan has however formalized the creation and function of a Technical Committee to assist INAPESCA with different aspects of the research needed. The Management Plan has proposed research priorities related to population dynamics, biomass assessment, meta-population analysis, environmental impacts and ecosystem analysis, predictive models and experimental fishing. Socioeconomic studies are also proposed. However, the stock assessment method is still at an early stage of development and is considered a weak link in the harvest strategy as are informal agreements between industry and authorities.
The strategy appears to be working in its purpose to achieve the goals of sustainability with a fishery that has worked for many years and persevered in the face of environmental variability. There is currently no indication that the target stock is overfished or that overfishing is occurring and the stock appears to maintain its ability to replace itself. However, under Guidance to the CR GCB2.5, it is clear that robust stock assessment methods and systematic applications of the HCR are key elements of the harvest strategy and they could not be demonstrated to be working together towards achieving the strategy’s objective. The team considered that the fishery does not meet the standard at
Justification SG80. b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the likely to work based may not have been harvest strategy has been fully on prior experience or fully tested but evaluated and evidence exists
plausible argument. evidence exists that it to show that it is achieving its is achieving its objectives including being objectives. clearly able to maintain stocks
Guidepost at target levels. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 101 of 264
There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place that is applied to PI 1.2.1M individual components or to the entire stock complex All elements of the harvest strategy described in the previous section are expected to work under the perspective of single population management because they are aiming to avoid reaching MSY and to prevent growth and recruitment overfishing (e.g. reference points based on MSY criteria, low biomass limit, size restrictions, time and area closures, restrictions on the number of vessels and/or fishing effort). Also, overall the harvest strategy has been working for a few years with decisions taken by authorities after agreements with the fishers and based on the realized performance of the fishery. There’s no concern about the status of the stock and this observation works towards the expectation that the strategy is working. However, the Plan has been in effect only for a little over two years and the management system is still learning to operate under the requirements of the Plan; the harvest strategy has not been fully tested, and some of its elements are
not completely defined (e.g. 푭푴푺풀 species specific, the OY) and a process that systematically applies the HCR, therefore the team considered the fishery to
Justification meet the standard at SG 80 but not at SG100. c Monitoring is in place
that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is
Guidepost working. Met? (Y) The behaviour of the fishery is observed and evaluated in terms of the harvest rate at the end of a fishing season and the proportion of juveniles in the catch as a
season progresses. In recent years, INAPESCA has also started to conduct ship-based hydroacoustic surveys to obtain indices of abundance that are independent of the fishery. The
Justification fishery meets the standard at SG60. d The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.
Guidepos t Met? (N) The harvest strategy was only recently put together as a formal Management Plan published in 2012, but it explicitly considers that the plan should be reviewed every year. However, the team has not received evidence to demonstrate that formal review has occurred, therefore the fishery cannot meet the standard at
Justification SG100 yet.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 102 of 264
There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place that is applied to PI 1.2.1M individual components or to the entire stock complex e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is place. taking place. not taking place.
Guidepos t Met? (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant) Sharks are not a target species in this fishery and therefore this scoring issue does not need to be scored.
Justificatio n References DOF 2012
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1-1. The fishery needs to provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock. A robust stock assessment and a harvest control rule with agreed outcomes need to be active and working together towards achieving the harvest strategy objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. 1-2. The target reference point needs to be explicitly determined so that it can work with the rest of the strategy to achieve its objectives.
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2
There are well defined and effective HCR(s) designed and applied to individual PI 1.2.2M components of the stock or the entire complex Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in control rules are in place that are place that are consistent with the consistent with the harvest strategy and harvest strategy and which act to reduce ensure that the
the exploitation rate exploitation rate is as limit reference reduced as limit points are reference points are
uidepost
G approached. approached. Met? (Y) (N)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 103 of 264
There are well defined and effective HCR(s) designed and applied to individual PI 1.2.2M components of the stock or the entire complex The small pelagics Fisheries Management Plan as published in the Official Gazette, is one of the main management instruments defined under the General Fisheries Law of Mexico. It gives an explicit, written harvest control rule (HCR) that is used for actively managed species, such as the thread herring complex. We do not currently have evidence that the different thread herring species have meaningful differences in their estimated Fmsy and Bmin so are currently allowing for the assumption that they are close enough to have similar parameter values and operate with a single HCR.
There are generally understood harvest control rules in place, defined by the following equation: C=(B-Bmin)*FRACTION, where the output C, is the Biological Acceptable Catch (BAC) which functions as a limit reference point for the system. The HCR is an MSY-based control rule that is defined in the FMP where the value FRACTION (currently Fmsy used, but better defined as a harvest rate, see more below) limits the intensity of the harvest rate to a maximum of 0.25 of the biomass of individuals age 1+. The HCR also includes a pre-established minimum biomass cut-off (Bmin) such that if reached, the fishery would stop operating. This Bmin value is set at a point designed to assure that sufficient spawning biomass is left in the system to assure rebuilding. The HCR therefore operates by requiring catch reductions prior to biomass approaching the estimated level of recruitment impairment.
While the control rule is explicit, the assessment team considered that elements of the harvest control rule need to be revised so that the variable FRACTION is determined not as a default value from other species but based on thread herring biology. FRACTION also needs to be specified as a true harvest rate and not used directly as fishing mortality.
The current evidence is that the HCR is partially, but not fully in place (Y at SG60, N at SG80). At the time of the onsite in 2014, the 2012 Management Plan was in the early stages of implementation. Evidence was presented by INAPESCA that the HCR is in place in the FMP and has been computed, and that catches for the most recent season did not exceed BAC. However, the team has not been presented evidence indicating that the control rule is computed prior to the fishing season or that the harvest control rule is connected via a functional system for monitoring catch in real time, with the ability reduce or stop fishing operations as the allowable catch of the year is reached. In order to meet SG80, the control rule needs to be applied every year and removals should be monitored relative to
BAC, with tools to reduce removals as BAC is approached.
It is important to note that there is no evidence that catches have exceeded historical BACs and that functionally there has been little need for tools to control
Justification effort relative to limits on this lightly exploited stock.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 104 of 264
There are well defined and effective HCR(s) designed and applied to individual PI 1.2.2M components of the stock or the entire complex
b The selection of the The design of the harvest harvest control rules control rules takes into takes into account the account a wide range of
Guidepost main uncertainties. uncertainties. Met? (Y) (N) The definition of the BAC is such that it works as a LRP because the Plan establishes the computation of an Optimum Yield (OY) as a fraction of the BAC with the explicit purpose of avoiding overfishing. However, the MSC CR establishes that the TRP must be consistent with MSY, but in the Mexican Management Plan, it is the LRP that is consistent with MSY. This approach is anticipated in the CR CB2.3.7 indicating that: The team should award scores between 80 and 100 to the second scoring issue in PI 1.2.2 if management chooses to set a limit reference point above the point that reproductive capacity starts to be appreciably impaired. The Guidance to the same section of the CR further adds: Although it may generally be the case that limit reference points are set at the point that reproductive capacity starts to be appreciably impaired, for some fisheries, especially those for small pelagic species and annual species where there the stock recruit relationship is very steep, management may choose to set a limit reference point above this level. Such action should attract scores between 80 and 100 with the intent that the overall score reflects the very low likelihood of reproductive capacity ever being impaired if such a limit reference point was used. By setting the LRP to a level slightly lower than MSY, the Management Plan accounts for some uncertainties that may make recruitment fluctuate in unpredicted ways: therefore, the overall approach is precautionary. However, there are many important uncertainties in parameterization, model performance, observation and process errors, that either have not being accounted for in the stock assessments nor the margin of safety of the HCR has been fully investigated. Similarly, the need for differences in Bmin for the three species (and particularly least abundance species in a given year) has not be explicitly explored. Further analyses need to be conducted to test the response of the control rule and other tools to unfavourable environmental conditions in which effort levels that presently do not impact recruitment capacity, could impair the persistence of the stock in the future.
It is concluded that the conservative structure of the HCR meets the requirements
Justification at SG80 but not SG100.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 105 of 264
There are well defined and effective HCR(s) designed and applied to individual PI 1.2.2M components of the stock or the entire complex c There is some Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that evidence that tools indicates that the tools the tools in use are effective in used to implement in use are appropriate achieving the exploitation harvest control rules and effective in levels required under the
are appropriate and achieving the harvest control rules. effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation. required under the
Guidepost harvest control rules. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 106 of 264
There are well defined and effective HCR(s) designed and applied to individual PI 1.2.2M components of the stock or the entire complex Scoring Issue c is “harvest control rules evaluation". Here we have considered “evaluation” equivalent to the definition of testing (the involvement of some sort of structured logical argument and analysis that supports the choice of strategy in the context of fisheries, it can include the use of experience from analogous fisheries, empirical testing (for e.g. Practical experience of performance or evidence of past performance) simulation test (for instance using computer intensive modeling such as MSE).
In this system there are tools (defined as "mechanisms for implementing strategies under Principles 1 or 2. For example, TACs, mesh regulations, closed areas, etc. could be used to implement HCRs") that can be used to control effort in a manner that is "effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCR".
“Tools”, or management measures, that are available include catch monitoring, spatial and temporal closures, size limits and effort restrictions, among others. These main measures are already in place in this system, and effort is restricted by the prohibition to allow new vessels to enter the fishery and the size restriction in the catch. There is evidence that effort in days is increasing and that size limits are not fully respected, both discussed in 3.2.3
If the current HCR is modified to use a harvest rate vs Fmsy term as FRACTION, this is also expected to reinforce the security imposed by other measures. Harvest rate based strategies are known to be safer to determine allowable seasonal catches because they are adjusted to the perceived biomass abundance.
Therefore, the fact that landings have not exceeded the recently calculated BAC indicates that the tools that are currently in use (some, like effort limits and size limits, imperfectly implemented) remain appropriate and effective in achieving
the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules and could also be used to further limit effort based on the status of the stock & the HCR, if needed.
Justification This meets the requirements at SG80 but not SG100. References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 107 of 264
There are well defined and effective HCR(s) designed and applied to individual PI 1.2.2M components of the stock or the entire complex CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
1-3. The fishery needs to provide evidence that the Harvest Control Rule is effectively in place to ensure that exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached.
1-4. Present evidence that the harvest control rules for the thread herring complex are well defined.
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3
Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy. In the case of PI 1.2.3M stock complexes, the information must come from a statistical sampling program Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity, productivity and fleet productivity, fleet fleet composition, stock composition is composition and other abundance, fishery removals available to support data is available to and other information such as
the harvest strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current
Guidepost harvest strategy, is available. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 108 of 264
Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy. In the case of PI 1.2.3M stock complexes, the information must come from a statistical sampling program The INAPESCA small pelagics scientific program is regularly collecting information useful in different aspects of the analysis of the stock assessment. There is detailed information about the number and characteristics of the ships that constitute the fishing fleet. Therefore, effort can be modelled and analysed. Catch is also recorded with a reasonable level of accuracy. Samples are collected to determine the proportion of each Opisthonema species in the catch every year. Acoustic surveys are being conducted to obtain estimates of abundance independent of the fishery, although these aren’t currently being used for predictive management. Harvest rate is computed at the end of the fishing season and size of the fish is recorded as the season progresses. An observer program has been already implemented and presently monitors ~ 9% of trips. While weak coverage, important information has been collected nonetheless. Overall, it is concluded that sufficient information is available to support the harvest strategy to meet the requirements at SG80, but more is still needed to understand better the population dynamics, stock variability among the different Opisthonema species and the influence of environmental factors, therefore the
Justification fishery does not meet the requirements at SG100. b Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at monitored with high frequency one indicator is a level of accuracy and and a high degree of certainty, available and coverage consistent and there is a good monitored with with the harvest understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to control rule, and one uncertainties in the support the harvest or more indicators are information [data] and the control rule. available and robustness of assessment and
monitored with management to this sufficient frequency to uncertainty. support the harvest
Guidepost control rule. Met? (Y) (N) (N)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 109 of 264
Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy. In the case of PI 1.2.3M stock complexes, the information must come from a statistical sampling program Catch is recorded regularly as the season progresses with a level of accuracy that allows determination of its status relative to the BAC for each species in the complex. Size of fish is measured to determine the proportion of juveniles in the catch. Both are important pieces of information related to the tools in the harvest strategy.
Acoustic surveys are being developed and implemented to produce abundance data independent to the fishery. The SCS team recognizes the complexity of organizing and conducting these surveys and acknowledges the progress made to obtain fisheries independent indices. However, the results of the surveys are still at the level of the entire Opistonema complex. The control rule needs to assure that the individual elements in the complex will achieve the management objectives as reflected in the reference points. The methodology needs to improve so that the target strength parameters can be more solidly applied to thread herring or a thorough discussion is needed to support the current assumptions that have been validated at a basic level only for Pacific Sardines.
Overall, this SI satisfies most of the requirements at SG80. However, given the critical importance of abundance indicators in the stock assessments, the team strongly recommends that to maintain score at the SG80 level the client presents evidence of improvements in the reliability and functionality of acoustic surveys.
Justification The fishery meets the standard at SG60 but not at SG80.
c There is good information on all other fishery removals
Guidepost from the stock. Met? (Y) Although the team did not receive information about this SI, it is assumed that no thread herring is taken by small purse seiners or other gear types that may need to be accounted for in stock assessment in the southern Gulf of California. The northern portion of the fishery is dominated by O. libertate and managed
Justification separately, so is not scored here. Therefore the fishery meets the SG 80. References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
1-5. Because stock assessments are key elements of a harvest strategy, and stock assessments require reliable indices of abundance, the acoustic surveys need to be
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 110 of 264
Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy. In the case of PI 1.2.3M stock complexes, the information must come from a statistical sampling program conducted on a regular basis to feed this important element of the harvest strategy. These surveys need to be consolidated and their methods refined to be able to support the control rule.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 111 of 264
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4
There is an adequate assessment of the stock status. In the case of stock PI 1.2.4M complexes, status of component stocks is considered Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The assessment is The assessment is appropriate appropriate for the for the stock and for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes
harvest control rule. into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature
Guidepost of the fishery. Met? (Y) (N) The two most recent assessments (Jacob-Cervantes 2012; Jacob-Cervantes and Cisneros-Mata 2015) aimed to determine the status of stocks in relation to reference points. In the first case the analysis considered the stock as a whole complex. The second assessment included a procedure to analyse the situation of each species based on a single history of effort. The multispecies model also included a more accessible way to present the status of the stocks by means of Kobe plots showing the status of the fishery in terms of biomass (to determine whether the stock is over-exploited) and in terms of fishing mortality (to determine whether the stock is being over-fished). Current efforts are developing an analytical methodology allowing estimation of biological parameters and stock status in a robust and reliable way. These approaches are however not at the best possible level of capacity to estimate such parameters with the level of accuracy required by the harvest strategy. They are considered appropriate because they have started to address major features of the species biology and how they relate to fishing pressure. However, the assessments need to address with more detail the age specific effects of fishing mortality, natural mortality is still very uncertain, as is the nature of the stock recruitment relationship. Results from VPA are very sensitive to assumptions that have not been tested and this approach currently assumes one single stock: these issues need to be further analysed in the context of a multispecies fishery or stock complex. The multispecies model on the other hand, is much better able to handle uncertainty and allows for incorporation of process error, but can’t analyse the
effect of selectivity and age specific mortality. Furthermore, the report of the multispecies assessment, although generally more appealing in the way stock status is presented, didn’t include enough technical description to fully identify its
Justification strengths and potential flaws. It is particularly important that the differences in
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 112 of 264
the estimated biomass abundance from the VPA and the multispecies assessments are investigated and resolved. It was finally concluded that although work is still needed, the assessments are appropriate for the stock and the control rule and meet the requirements at SG80 but not at SG100.
b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference
Guidepost points. Met? (Y) The two most recent assessments (Jacob-Cervantes 2012; Jacob-Cervantes and Cisneros-Mata 2015) aimed to determine the status of stocks in relation to reference points. In the first case, the analysis considered the stock as a whole complex. The second assessment included a procedure to analyse the situation of each species based on a single history of effort. This last analysis also included a more accessible way to present the status of the stocks by means of Kobe plots showing the status of the fishery in terms of biomass (to determine whether the
stock is over-exploited) and in terms of fishing mortality (to determine whether the stock is being over-fished). The assessments estimate stock status relative to reference points, meeting the
Justification standard at SG60. c The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into
identifies major uncertainty into account uncertainty and is sources of uncertainty. account. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a
Guidepost probabilistic way. Met? (Y) (N) (N) Several assessments have been conducted to estimate both biomass abundance and maximum sustainable yield for the Opistonema complex. Early estimates of MSY were very low (Lyle-Fritch and Ruiz-Luna 1997) compared to current estimates (Jacob-Cervantes 2012; Jacob-Cervantes and Cisneros-Mata 2015), probably because they were obtained using data from the early stages of the fishery. In addition, some MSY values were obtained using unreliable analytical methods. The assessment methodology has improved in time to the use of age structured VPA and more currently, the use of a Bayesian, multispecies production model that attempts to incorporate species-specific information and observation error into an appropriate statistical framework. As explained in SIa, assessment models still need considerable work to provide
Justification robust estimates of biological and management parameters, but it is clear that the
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 113 of 264
system identifies the main uncertainties, including model structure and assumptions, observation and process error, and species specific response to fishing pressure. The stock assessment meets the requirements at SG60. At SG80 it is necessary that identified factors that contribute to major uncertainties such as the differences in estimated abundance between assessment methods; the sensitivity of models to assumptions on parameters like natural mortality; or the strength of information in data, must have to be investigated and discussed to assess the reliability of outcomes. At the moment, the fishery doesn’t meet the standard at SG80. d The assessment has been
tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have
Guidepost been rigorously explored. Met? (N) Assessment methodologies are still being developed for the particular situation of a fishery that is harvesting a stock complex. This development is in early stages where alternative models are being applied. No testing for robustness under a
Justificatio n formal design has been conducted. e The assessment of The assessment has been stock status is subject internally and externally peer
Guidep ost to peer review. reviewed. Met? (N) (N) The latest assessments currently in use by the management authorities have not
been subject to peer review.
Justific ation References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1-6. The stock assessment methodology needs to be improved to resolve the current inconsistencies shown between the VPA and Multispecies Production models. This type of model uncertainty needs to be accounted for to increase the reliability of the assessment methodology to support the harvest strategy.
1-7. The stock assessment must be subject to peer review.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 114 of 264
Principle 2 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main retained species Main retained species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that retained species
biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits and fluctuating around scoring issue c below). to scoring issue c their target reference points.
Guidepost below). Met? Y Y N Bocona sardine (Cetengraulis mysticetus). Bocona sardine is the only main retained species in this fishery. From 1972 to 2014 bocona catch averaged 31% of volume in the fishery. From 2004 to 2014 however, the contribution of bocona to the total catch declined, removing one year when the catch was 56%, to an average of 13%. The proportional contribution of bocona to the total catch of the fishery shows considerable fluctuations, ranging from 2% to 77% of the total catch in the UoA. For the period 2004 to 2014, the contribution of bocona shows almost half of the times a contribution of less than 10% and the other half a contribution of about 20% with one spike to 56% which coincides with a year of low thread herring catch.
Life history information suggests that the species has robust life history traits, with the highest natural mortality rate of all retained species, a short lifespan and early maturity. Annual fishing mortality rates for bocona from 1972 through 2012 have remained under the level producing MSY.
Biomass estimates come from landing data, systematic biological sampling of the landed catch and CPUE indices. No evidence was presented of any fisheries
independent estimate of bocona biomass. Hydroacoustic surveys in the waters off Sinaloa and Nayarit states are not spatially designed to estimate bocona which is thought to inhabit shallow, inshore waters.
Justification
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 115 of 264
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Considering robust life history traits as well as the broad biological range of the population, and that no other significant fisheries are known to target or incidentally capture significant volumes of bocona sardines in Sinaloa and Nayarit waters, it is reasonable to infer that the bocona stock is highly likely to be within biologically based limits, meeting the standard at SG80.
Spotted eagle ray (Aetobatus narinari) and devil ray (Mobula japanica) Spotted eagle rays are not a target species, but there is evidence that they are mostly retained, and therefore there is likely market demand for the species. . However, for both of these years 100% of the catch was retained. Extrapolated volumes for spotted eagle rays in the UoA decreased from 1.093 MT in the 2012- 2013 season to 0.007 MT in the 2014-15 season.
Devil rays are caught in low volumes in the Gulf of California small pelagic fishery, a total of two individuals were captured and retained in the single vessel observed in the 2012-13 and 2013-14 seasons. The extrapolated values estimated fleet landings of 0.97mT in the 2013-2014 season. Both observed individuals were retained and therefore there is likely market demand for the species. Despite small catch volumes of both ray species ( <1% of Total Catch by weight), they are categorized as “main” species because of their vulnerability and low reproductive potential, both species are considered a Near Threatened species by the IUCN red list. No stock assessment information is available for these species either within territorial waters, or on the high seas under IATTC management, as the responsible management agency for assessing highly migratory species in the EPO. The status of these species is uncertain and biologically based limits are not
available. On the basis that the proportion of catch of this species is small and decreasing it makes it unlikely that this fishery could seriously deplete the population or hinder recovery, meeting the requirements of the SG 80 level. Without any reference points for the species being in place, it is not possible to
Justification score Spotted eagle or Devil rays at the SG 100The SG 80 is met.
b Target reference points are defined for retained species.
Guidepost Met? N There are no reference points are not defined for any of the main retained species.
Justific ation
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 116 of 264
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species c If main retained If main retained species are outside species are outside the the limits there are limits there is a partial measures in place that strategy of are expected to demonstrably effective ensure that the fishery management measures
does not hinder in place such that the recovery and fishery does not hinder rebuilding of the recovery and
Guidepost depleted species. rebuilding. Met? n/a n/a n/a- None of the main retained species are in recovery or rebuilding
Justificat ion d If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing
the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or
Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Y
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 117 of 264
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Bocona sardine The status of bocona sardine is not fully understood, but available evidence, plus the practices and measures in place, including landings monitoring and management rules as passive species under the Small Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan, are expected to result in the UoA not causing stocks to be outside biologically based limits. The SG 60 is met.
Spotted eagle ray and devil ray The status of these two species are poorly known, but the practices in place (low exploitation rates relative to overall abundance for species with broadly distributed biological populations) are expected to result in the vessels within the
UoC causing stocks to be outside biologically based limits. Monitoring of bycatch coupled with the mitigation measures protocol that offer guidelines for returning captured rays may further work as measures to reduce impacts relative to biologically based limits.
Justification The SG 60 is met. References Jacob-Cervantes y Cisneros-Mata, 2015; Jacob-Cervantes 2015 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 118 of 264
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing retained species. that are expected to necessary, that is maintain the main expected to maintain retained species at the main retained levels which are highly species at levels which likely to be within are highly likely to be biologically based within biologically limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to
fishery does not ensure the fishery hinder their recovery does not hinder their and rebuilding. recovery and
Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y N Bocona sardines (Centengraulis mysticetus) There is a partial strategy in place that is expected to maintain bocona sardine, as a small pelagic species considered by the SPFMP, at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, and to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. In the MSC system, a partial strategy is defined as “A cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically.” For passively managed species such as bocona, the Small Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (SPFMP) defines that, “monitoring of landings and abundance indices are considered sufficient for handling”. If necessary “passive species” may change their status and move towards active management. The monitoring of landings and effort, season closures, limited harvest rates and assessments of the status of the population are considered measures of a partial strategy expected to maintain bocona sardine at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, and to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. This meets the standard at SG80. The SPFMP is not considered a full
Justification
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 119 of 264
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species strategy that has been properly designed for the scale and intensity of these non- target interactions, therefore the SG 100 score is not reached. This element meets SG80.
Spotted eagle ray There is a partial strategy in place for rays by virtue of the interconnected measures in NOM-029 (see section 3.4.3, P2 background). In particular, the requirement to log information on board vessels and to use these data plus the information from observers in conjunction with academic research to ascertain population size, the size structure of the catch, the state of sexual maturity and any other biological, ecological or ecosystem parameters should be likely to keep species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits and do not hinder recovery or rebuilding. Other measures include mitigation measures protocol that outline release protocols for rays and workshops for crew and observers to improve live release practices. The mitigation measures protocol published by Maz Sardina in 2015 (See Appendix 6.3) stipulates that species with special protection including rays should be returned to the sea. However, there is not clear evidence that this system is fully place and functioning. Therefore, because the NOM is in place, the partial strategy can be said to be in place. Other measures will need to be designed, including means to curtain retention, to say that a full strategy is in place. This element meets SG80
Devil rays The monitoring measures are deemed sufficient, considering the current low
volumes of catch for devil rays a partial harvest strategy is not seen as necessary. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on information plausible argument partial strategy will directly about the fishery (e.g., general work, based on some and/or species involved.
experience, theory or information directly comparison with about the fishery similar and/or species
Guidepost fisheries/species). involved. Met? Y Y (bocona) /Y (rays) N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 120 of 264
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Bocona sardine The measures in the partial harvest strategy applicable to bocona sardines “are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument. These measures are “monitoring of landings and abundance indices are considered sufficient for handling”…. and the ability to change the species from passive to active management status as needed. Previous modeling and ongoing monitoring of landings provide some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy - of inclusion of bocona in the SPFMP as a passively managed species - will work. Additionally, the team received evidence that the estimated biomass has been historically above the level producing MSY and overfishing is not happening. This is sufficient to meet the standard at SG80. This element meets SG80.
Spotted eagle ray The monitoring measures in the partial harvest strategy applicable to rays “are
considered likely to work, based on plausible argument”. The release measures for rays outlined in the mitigation measures protocol are also likely to work, if these also include ray species with commercial values, such as spotted eagle rays.
Justification The SG 80 is met. c There is some There is clear evidence that the
evidence that the strategy is being implemented partial strategy is successfully. being implemented
Guidepost successfully. Met? Y (bocona) /N (rays) N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 121 of 264
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Bocona sardines Evidence of seasonal closures, assessments of the status of bocona and monitoring of landing indicate the implementation of the measures in the partial strategy. Therefore the SG 80 is met.
Spotted eagle ray Records of capture and retained rays from the on-board observer program serve as evidence that some of the measures in the partial harvest strategy applicable to rays are being successfully implemented. Evidence from workshops conducted to improve fishing practices and the publication of mitigation measures protocol for the fleet are also recognized as part of the management strategy for rays. The decrease in volume of catch of the spotted eagle ray are not necessarily a result of the effective implementation of the strategy and mitigation measures. Despite decrease in catch, the proportion of retained spotted eagle rays remains high, since this is a non-target species the changes in catch rates might be attributed to the species’ susceptibility to seasonal and spatial variations (Cuevas-Zimbron et al., 2011). Since these measures are not fully in place and there is not information directly about the fishery or species involved, only a score of 60 is possible.
Justification Therefore the SG 60 is met. d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective.
Guidepost Met? N
At the SG 100 there is not a strategy for any of the main retained species, so this SG is not met.
Justification
e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is place. taking place. not taking place.
Guidepost Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 122 of 264
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species It is highly likely that shark fining is not taking place. Data from observer records indicate that only one shark species (Scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini) is captured by the UoA, at very low levels (0.37 mt/season). Observer records also indicate that all sharks are retained. The low encounter rates with sharks and
evidence of full retention make it highly unlikely that this fleet engages in shark finning, as it does not have the attributes where there would be an incentive to do this. Without evidence of landing of all sharks with fins, it is not possible to say with a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place.
Justification The SG 80 is met. Maz Sardina S.A. De C.V. Protocolo De Navegación Y Medidas De Mitigación Para References La Pesca De Pelágicos Menores Del Sur Del Golfo De California 2015 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2-1. Present evidence that the partial strategy for spotted eagle rays is being implemented successfully
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3
Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are catch of all retained species
amount of main available on the and the consequences for the retained species taken amount of main status of affected populations. by the fishery. retained species taken
Guidepost by the fishery. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 123 of 264
Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Bocona sardine Landings data and effort monitoring for Bocona sardine provide qualitative and quantitative information, port sampling of landing serves as a verification measure It is appropriate to say that at the 80 level, qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Better information that samples the inshore range of the species is required to improve estimates of biomass used to inform population dynamics models to understand the consequences of the fishery on the status of the Bocona population. The SG 80 is met.
Spotted eagle ray and devil ray The observer records provide numerical, species-based data documenting number of individuals, overall volume of catch by species, and volume of retained catch. Size data is not collected for non-target species through the observer program, however, individual weights are collected and a length conversion could be used. There is enough quantitative information available on the amount of spotted eagle rays and devil rays taken by the fishery to meet SG 80. No data were presented on
potential unobserved mortality of returned individuals, this information would be required to accurately assess the consequences of the fishery on the populations of spotted eagle rays and devil rays, required to meet the SG 100. The SG 80 is met.
Justification b Information is Information is Information is sufficient to adequate to sufficient to estimate quantitatively estimate
qualitatively assess outcome status with outcome status with a high
ost outcome status with respect to biologically degree of certainty. respect to biologically based limits.
Guidep based limits. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 124 of 264
Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Bocona sardine At the SG 60 level, it is necessary for information to be adequate to qualitatively assess outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. The specific, quantitative information from total landings indicates there is information available from which it is possible to estimate the outcome impacts of the UoA on Bocona sardine with respect to biologically based limits, meeting SG80. However, without fisheries independent data, sampled from within the range of the species, it is not possible to quantitatively estimate outcome status for Bocona sardine with a high degree of certainty, required at the SG100 The SG 80 is met.
Spotted eagle ray and devil ray The specific, quantitative information from the observer program, indicates there is information available at the species level for the number and weight of individuals captured and retained. This information is sufficient to estimate outcome status of spotted eagle ray and devil ray with respect to biologically based limits at SG 80. Without data on whether released rays are alive/dead or information on post-release survival, there is not sufficient information to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty for these species required to meet SG100. Additionally, data collected from three vessels in three fishing seasons is not sufficient coverage to account for potential sensitivity
of rays’ catch rates to seasonal and spatial factors as well as to account for their schooling nature which can result in stochastic catch rates. The SG 80 is met.
Justification c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support adequate to support a support a strategy to manage
measures to manage partial strategy to retained species, and evaluate main retained species. manage main retained with a high degree of certainty species. whether the strategy is
Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 125 of 264
Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species
Bocona sardine Information available to support management currently comes only from landings records and catch data. At the SG 60 information is currently sufficient to support basic measures to manage bocona sardine. These measures represent a partial management strategy that is currently sufficient to provide reliable information to understand or mitigate impacts for bocona. The SG 80 is met.
Spotted eagle ray and devil ray Information available to support management currently comes from the (small) observer program. At the SG 80 information on number of retained organisms and volume is currently sufficient to support basic measures to support the partial strategy for rays outlined in NOM 029 and the Mitigation Measures Protocol. These measures represent a nascent partial management strategy that is currently
not sufficient to provide sufficiently regular and broad types of information, with appropriate samples sizes and reliability to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective as required at SG100.
Justification The SG 80 is met. d Sufficient data Monitoring of retained species continue to be is conducted in sufficient detail collected to detect any to assess ongoing mortalities increase in risk level to all retained species. (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator
score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the
Guidepost strategy) Met? Y (bocona)/ N (rays) N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 126 of 264
Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Bocona sardine Detailed information on landings, effort and size composition are continuously collected to monitor the behavior of the stock. This type of information is sufficient to detect potential changes that could represent an increase in risk levels and meets the standard at SG80. Information independent of the fishery would be required to achieve a level of detail required to meet SG100.
Spotted eagle ray and devil ray It is not currently clear that sufficient data will continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level to main retained species, due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy. First, it is not clear that the current design of the observer program is adequate to deliver representative data on the size and structure of non-target species for the fleet overall, although it is a very good start. There is however very high risk of significant error when such extrapolations are based on only one or two vessels, particularly for a fishery that interacts with schooling, spatially patchy populations.
Therefore, it is questionable whether the current design is sufficient to be able to detect attributes such as increases in risk, when overall bias may be large, therefore a score of 80 is not possible. The SG 80 is not met.
Justification References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2-2. Demonstrate that sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level for spotted eagle rays and devil rays.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 127 of 264
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main bycatch species Main bycatch species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that bycatch species
biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits. scoring issue b below). to scoring issue b
Guidepost below). Met? Y Y N Cownose ray (Rhinoptera steindachneri) Cownose rays are caught in low volumes in the southern Gulf of California small pelagic fishery: extrapolated values from the nascent observer program showed estimated fleet captures of 1.48 mt in the 2013-2014 season. Cownose rays are listed as Near Threatened by the IUCN, but they are not a target species of the thread herring fishery. Retention of captured individuals decreased from 100% in the first season of the on-board observer program to 40% by the third season, for this reason cownose rays are considered main bycatch species and not main retained species. No stock assessment information is available for the species within Mexican waters.
The status of this species is uncertain and biologically based limits are not available. On the basis that the proportion of catch of this species is small and retention rates appear to be decreasing, it makes it unlikely that this fishery could seriously deplete the population or hinder recovery, meeting the
Justification requirements of the SG 80, but not at the SG 100 level. b If main bycatch If main bycatch species species are outside are outside biologically biologically based based limits there is a limits there are partial strategy of mitigation measures in demonstrably effective place that are mitigation measures in
expected to ensure place such that the that the fishery does fishery does not hinder not hinder recovery recovery and
Guidepost and rebuilding. rebuilding. Met? n/a n/a
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 128 of 264
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups
– n/a The main retained bycatch species, cownose ray, is not in recovery or rebuilding
Justification c If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing
the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or
Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Y Cownose rays The status cownose rays is poorly known (see section 3.4.3, P2 background), but the practices in place (low exploitation rates, relative to overall abundance in the
full Gulf of CA population) are expected to mean that catches by the vessels in the UoA are not causing stocks to be outside biologically based limits. Monitoring of bycatch and mitigation measures for release of rays are expected to work as measures to control any serous or irreversible harm.
Justification The SG 60 is met. References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 129 of 264
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the PI 2.2.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing and minimizing that are expected to necessary, that is bycatch. maintain the main expected to maintain bycatch species at the main bycatch levels which are highly species at levels which likely to be within are highly likely to be biologically based within biologically limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to
fishery does not ensure the fishery does hinder their recovery not hinder their and rebuilding. recovery and
Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 130 of 264
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the PI 2.2.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Cownose rays There is a partial strategy in place by virtue of the interconnected measures in NOM-029 (see section 3.4.2, P2 background). In particular, the requirement to log information onboard vessels and to use these data plus the information from observers in conjunction with academic research to ascertain population size, the size structure of the catch, the state of sexual maturity and any other biological, ecological or ecosystem parameters should be likely to keep species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits and do not hinder recovery or rebuilding. Other measures include mitigation measures protocol that outline release protocols for rays and workshops for crew and observers to improve fishing practices (See Appendix 6.3). The protocol for mitigation measures protocol published in 2015 stipulates that species with special protection including rays should be returned to the sea. Therefore, because the NOM is in place, and there are guidelines for mitigation measures, the partial strategy can be said to be in place meeting SG80.
It is not clear whether data from the UoA’s observer program, or information from logbooks pertaining to rays (required by NOM-029), is being fed into the larger “national system of scientific information on sharks and rays”, nor whether these data have been used to determine the population size, size structure and state of sexual maturity among other parameters of the population. Furthermore, it is not clear that this information, if it has been generated, has been translated into
management measures that are in turn, implemented successfully in the Southern thread herring fishery in terms of its interaction with cownose rays. Therefore the ation measures in place are not considered to work cohesively as a strategy to manage and minimize bycatch at the SG100.
Justific The SG80 is met. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on plausible argument partial strategy will information directly about the (e.g. general work, based on some fishery and/or species
experience, theory or information directly involved. comparison with about the fishery similar and/or species
Guidepost fisheries/species). involved. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 131 of 264
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the PI 2.2.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Cownose rays The measures in the partial harvest strategy applicable to rays are quite general, but based on the level of detail of the onboard observer program, and the
implementation of measures for release of non-target species outlined in the mitigation measures protocol, there is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will likely work, meeting SG 80. In the absence of a complete strategy that has been tested, a score of SG100 is not possible.
Justification The SG 80 is met. c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the
that the partial strategy is being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented
Guidepost successfully. Met? N N Cownose rays Records of capture and retained rays from the on-board observer program serve as evidence that some of the measures in the partial harvest strategy applicable to rays are being successfully implemented. Evidence from workshops conducted to improve fishing practices and the publication of mitigation measures protocol for the fleet are also recognized as part of the management strategy for rays. The decrease in volume of retained Cownose rays can’t be considered as evidence of the effective implementation of the strategy and mitigation measures, because
n the limited data from onboard observer program is not sufficient to support this conclusion. Since we do not have evidence that all measures in NOM 029 and the 2015 Release protocol are fully implemented (with evidence that measures are not sufficiently enforced) and because there is not information directly about the
Justificatio fishery or species involved therefore SG 80 is not met. d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective.
Guidepos t Met? N At the SG 100 there is not a strategy for any of the main retained species, so this SG is not met.
Justificatio n References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 132 of 264
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the PI 2.2.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations 2-3. Present evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully for cownose rays.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 133 of 264
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine PI 2.2.3 the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are catch of all bycatch species and
amount of main available on the the consequences for the bycatch species taken amount of main status of affected populations. by the fishery. bycatch species taken
Guidepost by the fishery. Met? Y Y N Cownose ray The observer records provide quantitative, species-based data documenting number of individuals, and volume of captured and retained catch. Size data is not collected for non-target species through the observer program, however, individual weights are collected and a length conversion could be used. There is enough quantitative information available on the amount of Cownose rays taken by the fishery to meet SG 80. No data were presented on potential unobserved mortality of returned individuals, this information would be required to accurately assess the consequences of the fishery on the populations of Cownose rays, required to meet the SG 100. At the 100 level, all catch is not verifiable because it cannot be examined by port observers or by vessel owners at landing, since some is discarded at sea. For non-target species in particular, fleet-wide values extrapolated from small numbers of observed vessels may not be accurate as the
small sample size would create significant bias, particularly if the observed vessel is behaving differently from unobserved boats, which is a common occurrence in fleets do not have 100% observer coverage. The SG 80 is met.
Justification b Information is Information is Information is sufficient to adequate to broadly sufficient to estimate quantitatively estimate
understand outcome outcome status with outcome status with respect to status with respect to respect to biologically biologically based limits with a biologically based based limits. high degree of certainty.
Guidepost limits Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 134 of 264
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine PI 2.2.3 the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch The specific, quantitative information from the observer program indicates there is information available at the species level for the number and weight of individuals captured and retained. This information is sufficient to estimate outcome status of cownose rays with respect to biologically based limits at SG 80. Without data on whether released rays are alive/dead or information on post-release survival, there is not sufficient information to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty for these species required to meet SG100. Additionally,
data collected from three vessels in three fishing seasons is not sufficient to
ion account for potential uncertainty in rays’ catch rates due to schooling, seasonal and spatial factors.
Justificat The SG 80 is met. c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support adequate to support a support a strategy to manage
measures to manage partial strategy to retained species, and evaluate bycatch. manage main bycatch with a high degree of certainty species. whether the strategy is
Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N Information available to support management currently comes from the (small) observer program. At the SG 80 information on number of retained organisms and volume is currently sufficient to support basic measures to support the partial strategy for rays outlined in NOM 029 and the 2015 Mitigation Measures Protocol. These measures represent a nascent partial management strategy that is currently
not sufficient to provide sufficiently regular and broad types of information, with appropriate samples sizes and reliability to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective as required at SG100.
Justification The SG 80 is met.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 135 of 264
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine PI 2.2.3 the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch d Sufficient data Monitoring of bycatch data is continue to be conducted in sufficient detail collected to detect any to assess ongoing mortalities increase in risk to main to all bycatch species. bycatch species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator
scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the
Guidepost strategy). Met? N N It is not currently clear that sufficient data will continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level to cownose rays, due to changes in the outcome indicator scores, or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy. First, it is not clear that the current design of the observer program is adequate to deliver representative data on the size and structure of cownose rays for the fleet overall, although it is a very good start. There is currently a very high risk of bias when
extrapolations are based on only one or two vessels, particularly for a fishery that interacts with schooling, spatially patchy populations. Therefore, it is questionable whether the current design is sufficient to be able to detect attributes such as increases in risk, when overall bias may be large.
Justification Therefore a score of 80 is not possible.
References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2-4. Demonstrate that sufficient data continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to cownose rays.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 136 of 264
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1
The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Known effects of the The effects of the There is a high degree of fishery are likely to be fishery are known and certainty that the effects of the within limits of are highly likely to be fishery are within limits of national and within limits of national and international international national and requirements for protection of
requirements for international ETP species. protection of ETP requirements for species. protection of ETP
Guidepost species. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 137 of 264
The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Only ETP species with potential for direct or indirect mortalities were scored in 2.3.1.
Dolphins: Dolphin species identified in observer records are all considered abundant and of ‘Least Concern” by IUCN and are on Appendix II of CITES. Though Mexican legislation recognizes dolphin species as ‘Protected’, it does not provide any specific limits applicable overall fisheries or to the small pelagic fishery under assessment. Even the 24 mortalities recorded in 2013-2014 by observers of bottlenose dolphins does not violate a specific legal protection, nor does it pose a real threat at the population level to the relatively abundant species. Therefore, there is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.
Brown pelican Although the brown pelican is considered threatened (A) under NOM 059, by most other conservation regulations it is considered recovered and not of concern. The brown pelican has been de-listed throughout much of its range in the US (2009) and the West Indies. Brown pelicans are currently considered to be undergoing significant population increase. IUCN considers the species of ‘least concern.’ There are no limits for the fishery regarding take, and there is a high degree of certainty that the small number of deaths (46 in 2013-2014) will not cause serious or irreversible risk to the population.
Heermann’s gull According to observer data, there was no observed mortality of the Heermann’s gull in 2013-2014 in the Southern thread herring fishery. It is listed under NOM- 059 as protected and is considered near threatened with a fluctuating population. There are no limits for incidental mortality established by national and international requirements, and no reason to believe that the effects of the fishery are detrimental to the population.
Therefore, for all ETP species under consideration there is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are within limits of national and
Justification international protection: SG100
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 138 of 264
The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species b Known direct effects Direct effects are There is a high degree of
are unlikely to create highly unlikely to confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts create unacceptable significant detrimental direct to ETP species. impacts to ETP species. effects of the fishery on ETP
Guidepost species. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 139 of 264
Dolphins: Purse seine fishing gear does have potential for incidental mortality of dolphins, particularly if dolphins are encircled. This is well-known in purse seine tuna fisheries in which dolphins are set-upon due to their association with tuna. In the case of this fishery, there is not this beneficial association between dolphins and the target species, and therefore there is no incentive to encircle dolphins and put them at risk for incidental mortality. There was, however, record of 24 individual bottlenose dolphins killed, and over 100 more released, in the 2013-2014 observer records. Therefore, there are direct impact to the animals killed. However, given the recording of zero deaths in the most recent fishing season and assessment team conversations with local management and industry, incidental mortality of dolphins does not appear to be a systematic issue. Further, of dolphin species encountered are not at risk of serious or irreversible based on the number of mortalities documented in the two last observed fishing seasons. There is therefore a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental impacts of the fishery on dolphin species.
Brown pelican Although there is recorded incidental mortality of this species (46 in the 2013- 2014 season), there is a high degree of confidence that this mortality does not have a significant detrimental effect on Brown Pelican at the population level. The population is considered highly abundant, and undergoing impressive growth (as high as 40% in North America according to the IUCN redlist). There is also some indication that birds with oiled feathers may suffer indirect effects due to inability to thermo-regulate and delayed ability to feed, or maintain buoyancy after oiling. The fishery under assessment is relatively small in the overall region, and therefore if populations are increasing it can be said with a high degree of confidence that there is no significant detrimental direct effects of vessels in the UoA on this species.
Heermann’s gull As there are no recorded deaths of Heermann’s gulls in the fishery under assessment, and this species is less likely than brown pelicans to have direct gear interactions because of their feeding behaviour. In the Sonora small pelagics fishery, much larger than the southern gulf fleet under assessment here, there was
also no finding of detrimental direct impacts. Therefore, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on this species.
Justification
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 140 of 264
The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Therefore, for all ETP species under consideration there is a high degree of confidence that there is no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species. c Indirect effects have There is a high degree of
been considered and confidence that there are no are thought to be significant detrimental indirect unlikely to create effects of the fishery on ETP
Guidepost unacceptable impacts. species. Met? (Y) (Y)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 141 of 264
The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Dolphins: There is a high degree of confidence that there is no significant detrimental indirect effects on dolphin species because there a) there is no evidence of any trophic impacts from biomass removal, which is relatively small from this unit of assessment compared to other fisheries in the Gulf and ETP and b) there is relatively low interaction of this relatively small fishery.
Brown pelicans: Brown pelicans do feed on target species of the fishery, though not exclusively. There is no evidence that biomass removal of thread herring is affecting populations due to the aforementioned abundant status and significant population growth. Even in the absence of the population recovery, and as explained above for dolphins, interactions with brown pelicans by the unit of assessment is not believed to be sufficient to have indirect impacts with nutritional effects that are likely to cause unacceptable impacts to this ETP species.
Heermann’s gulls: Similar to brown pelicans, Heermann’s gulls do feed on target species of this fishery, though not exclusively. However, for the same reasons stated for brown pelicans it is considered highly unlikely that this fishery could remove enough biomass to significantly impact the species population, including through indirect impacts such as trophic interactions. Further, the gull population does not appear to be diminishing (it is considered ‘fluctuating’.)
Therefore, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species.
Justification
References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 142 of 264
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive place that minimise place for managing the strategy in place for managing mortality of ETP fishery’s impact on ETP the fishery’s impact on ETP species, and are species, including species, including measures to expected to be highly measures to minimise minimise mortality, which is likely to achieve mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and designed to be highly national and international international likely to achieve requirements for the requirements for the national and protection of ETP species.
protection of ETP international species. requirements for the protection of ETP
Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 143 of 264
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Dolphins (Common, Bottlenose) There is currently no formal measures strategy in place to minimize the fishery’s impact on ETP species. The Mitigation Measures Protocol outlines release guidelines for the release of dolphins, workshops are used to educate captains and crew on the implementation of these measures. This is considered an appropriate measure that alone can comprise an appropriate strategy, given the scale and nature of dolphin interactions, to manage the fishery’s impact on ETP species. Some uncertainty remains in terms of understanding whether the interactions observed are quantitatively representative of the fleet, given limited observer coverage. There is no requirement for such a strategy to achieve either national or international requirements as neither exists for these dolphin species. Therefore, it’s possible to say that there are measures in place that are appropriate for the fishery. Therefore a score of 80 is met
Brown pelicans, Heerman’s gull The Mitigation Measures Protocol outlines mitigation measures to minimize seabird mortality, including an installation to prevent birds from going through the power block and water hoses to scare birds. Workshops are used to educate captains and crew on the implementation of these measures. There is no requirement for such a strategy to achieve either national or international requirements, as neither exists for these seabird species, the measures in place
are cohesive and appropriate for the scale, with mechanisms in place that modify fishing practices to reduce seabird mortality. The SG100 is met
Justification b The measures are There is an objective The strategy is mainly based on considered likely to basis for confidence information directly about the work, based on that the strategy will fishery and/or species plausible argument work, based on involved, and a quantitative (e.g., general information directly analysis supports high
experience, theory or about the fishery confidence that the strategy comparison with and/or the species will work. similar involved.
Guidepost fisheries/species).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 144 of 264
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? Y Y N Dolphins (common, bottlenose), brown pelican, Heerman’s gull. While there are measures and/or a strategy in place at present, the absence of management action is still sufficient to score at the 80 level, because there remains an objective basis for confidence that the existing (absent) strategy will
work. There is no quantitative analysis of any management measures/strategy, nor evidence of best practices that would support a high degree of confidence in the management strategy for ETP species at the 100 level
Justification
c There is evidence that There is clear evidence that the the strategy is being strategy is being implemented implemented successfully.
Guidepost successfully. Met? Y N Dolphins (common, bottlenose), brown pelican, Heerman’s gull.
There photographic evidence that documents implementation of the strategy for ETP, meeting SG80. More formalized evidence is required to meet SG100. The SG 80 is met.
Justification
d There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.
Guidepost Met? N Dolphins (common, bottlenose), brown pelican, Heerman’s gull.
Without an analysis/evaluation of the implementation of the strategy for ETP species a score of 100 cannot be granted.
Justification References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 145 of 264
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3
Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is sufficient Sufficient information Information is sufficient to to qualitatively is available to allow quantitatively estimate estimate the fishery fishery related outcome status of ETP species related mortality of ETP mortality and the with a high degree of certainty.
species. impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP
Guidepost species. Met? Y N (Dolphins)/ Y (Birds) N Dolphins – There is currently a problem between the patchiness of mortality events and low observer coverage. To solve this may require the use of captains’ logs or a similar documentation source to obtain better coverage of quantitative estimates because of rare interactions. The 60 but not 80 is met.
Sea birds –As above, but noting that bird interactions are less likely to be as patchy as dolphins interactions because pelicans and Heerman’s gulls are generally more abundant, so even low observer coverage, data are likely to be more
Justification representative. Therefore, the 80 but not 100 is met. b Information is adequate Information is Accurate and verifiable to broadly understand sufficient to determine information is available on the the impact of the whether the fishery magnitude of all impacts,
fishery on ETP species. may be a threat to mortalities and injuries and the protection and consequences for the status of recovery of the ETP ETP species.
Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N Fishery is not a threat to ETP species, consequently current level of resolution is
deemed sufficient to assess impacts, but not full magnitude of mortalities injuries etc. So SG80 but not SG 100 is met.
Justification
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 146 of 264
Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. c Information is adequate Information is Information is adequate to to support measures to sufficient to measure support a comprehensive manage the impacts on trends and support a strategy to manage impacts, ETP species. full strategy to manage minimize mortality and injury
impacts on ETP of ETP species, and evaluate species. with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving
Guidepost its objectives. Met? Y Y N There’s very little need for a management strategy to manage impacts, so scored at 80, but nothing examining injury or minimizing impacts and evaluating any of this with a high degree of certainty – so 80 but not 100
Justificatio n References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2-5. Demonstrate that sufficient information is available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 147 of 264
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to reduce habitat unlikely to reduce fishery is highly unlikely to structure and function habitat structure and reduce habitat structure and
to a point where there function to a point function to a point where there would be serious or where there would be would be serious or irreversible irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm.
Guidepost harm. Met? Y Y N Purse seine vessels fishing in midwater are considered to have minimal impacts, causing little or no damage to biogenic habitats. However, data from the on-board observer program indicates that nets are set in shallow areas, close to the coast. In the observed vessel 14% of sets occurred in areas at a depth of 0 to 5 fathoms and benthic species including white shrimp, crustaceans and long tail stingray, were recorded as bycatch, indicating that the nets are interacting with the bottom substrate.
A CRIP evaluation overlapping substrate types with location of sets obtained from the on-board observer program concluded that fishing is occurring predominantly in substrates with sand, clay and silt fractions. It was estimated that close to 99.7% of sets occurred in soft bottom substrates. The substrate conditions were found to be consistent with those from studies conducted to evaluate the impact of the shrimp trawl fishery in the Gulf of California. Research on the impact of shrimp trawls concludes that shrimp trawls affect the grains size and organic content of sediments, however, because these systems are characterized by high energy processes with infaunal communities that are adapted to regular disturbance events, there are no significant impacts on the productivity of these habitats. Considering that purse seine nets have a minor magnitude of contact with the bottom substrate than bottom trawlers, it can be inferred that it is highly unlikely that the gear type used in this fishery can reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The available
information on the interactions of the small pelagics fleet, in association with research on the impacts of the shrimp bottom trawl fleet, are considered to have a level of detail appropriate to the scale and intensity of this fishery.
Justification This element is scored at SG100 References López-Martínez, et al. 2012
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 148 of 264
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Ulloa et al., 2006 Acevedo-Cervantes et al., 2012 Jacob Cervantes et al., 2015d.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a PI 2.4.2 risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing the impact of the that are expected to necessary, that is fishery on habitat types.
achieve the Habitat expected to achieve Outcome 80 level of the Habitat Outcome performance. 80 level of
Guidepost performance or above. Met? Y Y N The small pelagics fishery operating in the waters off the shores of Nayarit and Sinaloa is not considered to pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types, therefore a strategy is not available. There are several measures in place, including avoidance of rocky substrate areas, monitoring of depth and location of sets, and evaluation of this information, which are considered part of a partial
strategy that works to prevent damage to the habitat, reaching SG80. In order to achieve SG100 the fishery would need to present evidence of available mechanisms, to modify fishing practices, which would be implemented if any additional information revealed unacceptable risks to the habitat.
Justification The SG 80 is met.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 149 of 264
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a PI 2.4.2 risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on plausible argument partial strategy will information directly about the (e.g. general work, based on fishery and/or habitats
experience, theory or information directly involved. comparison with about the fishery similar and/or habitats
Guidepost fisheries/habitats). involved. Met? Y Y N Information obtained from studies of set location and interaction with bottom
substrates, combined with evaluations that combine data from this fishery with studies of impact for the bottom-trawls shrimp fishery, provide some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, reaching SG 80. A score of SG100 is not possible as there is no strategy in place.
Justification The SG80 is met. c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the
that the partial strategy is being implemented
ost strategy is being successfully. implemented
Guidep successfully. Met? Y N The on-board observer program is being implemented successfully, however, it is only considered part of a partial strategy thus this element is scored at SG 80. Information obtained from studies of set location and interaction with bottom
substrates, combined with evaluations that combine data from this fishery with studies of impact for the bottom-trawls shrimp fishery, provide some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, reaching SG 80. A score of SG100 is not possible as there is no strategy in place.
Justification The SG80 is met. d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.
Guidepos t Met? N There is no (full) strategy in place to address habitat impacts for the Southern GoC thread herring fishery, so this scoring issue is not met at the SG100.
Justificatio n
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 150 of 264
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a PI 2.4.2 risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types
References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is basic The nature, The distribution of habitat understanding of the distribution and types is known over their types and distribution vulnerability of all main range, with particular attention of main habitats in the habitat types in the to the occurrence of vulnerable
area of the fishery. fishery are known at a habitat types. level of detail relevant to the scale and
Guidepost intensity of the fishery. Met? Y Y N There is adequate information of the distribution of benthic habitat substrate types, the vulnerability of these substrata, the location of protected areas, the complexity of bottom substrates, areas of primary productivity and areas of biological importance for marine invertebrates in the Gulf of California, meeting SG 80. Available information provides an understanding of the likelihood of interaction of the gear with soft bottom substrates (silt, clay and sand) and it is generally understood that no significant alternation occurs in these habitats as a
result of interaction with purse seine nets. However, in order to meet SG 100
tion information provided should distinguish if there are any vulnerability variations across the different categories of soft bottom substrates.
Justifica This element meets SG80 for this scoring issue.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 151 of 264
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types b Information is Sufficient data are The physical impacts of the adequate to broadly available to allow the gear on the habitat types have understand the nature nature of the impacts been quantified fully. of the main impacts of of the fishery on gear use on the main habitat types to be habitats, including identified and there is spatial overlap of reliable information on
habitat with fishing the spatial extent of gear. interaction, and the timing and location of
Guidepost use of the fishing gear. Met? Y Y N There is reliable information on the spatial distribution of fishing effort and its distance relative to shore/depth to broadly understand the impacts of gear as a function of contact with substrata. The data from the VMS program also provides information on the distribution of the fleet. Sample tracks audited from this monitoring system show that there may be problems with the accuracy of the VMS system, however, with correction it remains largely reliable spatial
information. This is considered sufficient this element is meets score for SG80. The physical impacts of purse seins on soft bottom substrates are currently inferred from studies from the shrimp trawl fishery, therefore SG 100 is not met.
Justification The SG80 is met. c Sufficient data Changes in habitat continue to be distributions over time are collected to detect any measured. 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
Guidepost measures). Met? Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 152 of 264
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Data on the areas and depths of sets continues to be collected through the observer program and information on habitat distribution is measured as part of the efforts from independent researchers, this data can be used to detect changes
in the spatial location of sets as to detect an increase in risk to benthic habitats. Information on changes in habitat distributions over time should be presented to meet SG 100.
Justification This element meets scoring at SG80. References CONANP, Ulloa et al 2006 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to disrupt the key unlikely to disrupt the fishery is highly unlikely to elements underlying key elements disrupt the key elements ecosystem structure underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem structure
and function to a point structure and function and function to a point where where there would be to a point where there there would be a serious or a serious or would be a serious or irreversible harm.
Guidepost irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 153 of 264
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function Pelagic Ecosystems Ecological models used to study the trophic dynamics of small pelagics in the Gulf of California (Arreguín-Sánchez & Calderón-Aguilera, 2002; Arreguín-Sánchez & Martínez-Aguilar, 2004; Rosas-Ruíz et al., 2008; Lercari, 2006, Morales-Zarate et al. 2004 ) provide scientific evidence the small pelagics fishery does not significantly affect key functional relationships between the species. However, the majority of these studies are limited to the northern Gulf of California. Diet composition studies show that thread herring species are not an important component in the diet of species in the southern Gulf of California ecosystem, with the exception of the blue footed booby (Sula nebouxii), whose populations shows an increasing trend in the last decade (Jacob et al. 2015).
Several assessment indicate that annual fishing mortality rate for thread herring has remained below FMSY from 1972 through 2012. In 2012 the percentage of remaining biomass for the thread herring complex was estimated to be greater than 85% (Jacob-Cervantes and Cisneros-Mata, 2015), indicating that the fishery captures only a relatively small volume of small pelagic species.
The relatively small captures of the fishery and information indicating that thread herring is not a key functional species, make it highly unlikely for the small pelagic fishery to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm, meeting SG 80. However, because there is limited understanding as to what is the required biomass to sustain key ecosystem components this scoring issue does not meet SG 100 This element is scored at SG 80
Estuarine Communities The small pelagics fleet operates close to shore, in areas that function as nurseries for several commercial fish species. Evidence from research of bycatch composition from shrimp bottom trawlers in the Gulf of California operating in the same zone indicate high percentage of small sizes. Catch volumes of estuarine fish species in the small pelagics fleet is minimal and the fishery is highly unlikely to
result in significant changes in the composition of this ecological community, thus meeting SG80. However, there is no size data available for these bycatch species, thus SG 100 is not met.
Justification This element is scored at SG 80 Hernández-Padilla et al., 2015, Jacob-Cervantes et al. (2013), Jacob Cervantes et References al., 2015e OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 154 of 264
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious PI 2.5.2 or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that consists place, if necessary. strategy in place, if of a plan, in place. necessary.
Guidepos t Met? Y Y (Pelagic)/Y N (Estuarine)
Pelagic Ecosystems There are a number of measures in place in the Small Pelagics fishery that consider impacts of the fishery on ecosystem structure and function:
The NOM 029 and Small Pelagic Management Plan have measures to manage the harvest of thread herring and bocona sardines, as active and passive species respectively. The 2012 Fisheries Management Plan specifies that each species in the small pelagic fishery should be managed using a Harvest Control Rule. As an actively managed species the harvest control rule for thread herring also includes
a Biomass minimum value, intended to assure that the health of the stock is maintained by leaving a minimum of biomass for periods of low abundance. The Small Pelagics Management Plan also includes measures for investigation and research program that consider impacts of the fishery on the ecosystems. These
Justification include the on board observer program, hydroacustic surveys, and the use of
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 155 of 264
ecosystem modelling to document the degree of potential interaction between the fishery and the ecosystem.
Collectively these measures are considered to be a partial strategy, reaching SG 80. This scoring issue does not reach SG100 because there is no evidence that these measures operate collectively as part of a designed, specified process, also there no defined endpoint for ecosystem measures nor a corresponding timetable to ensure the achievement of this endpoint. This element is scored at SG 80
Estuarine Communities The onboard observer program is considered a partial strategy in place designed to assure that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to estuarine or nursery habitats. The observer records provide numerical, species- based data documenting number of individuals, and volume of captured and retained catch. Size data is not collected for bycatch species through the observer program, however volume to length conversions were proposed. Without evaluation of size data and mechanism to responds to potential impacts on estuarine communities this scoring issue does not reach SG100.
This element is scored at SG 80 b The measures take The partial strategy The strategy, which consists of into account potential takes into account a plan, contains measures to impacts of the fishery available information address all main impacts of the on key elements of and is expected to fishery on the ecosystem, and the ecosystem. restrain impacts of the at least some of these fishery on the measures are in place. The plan ecosystem so as to and measures are based on achieve the Ecosystem well-understood functional Outcome 80 level of relationships between the performance. fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.
This plan provides for development of a full strategy
that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious
Guidepost or irreversible harm. Met? Y N (Pelagic)/N N (Estuarine)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 156 of 264
Pelagic Ecosystems The measures in place, including the harvest control rules, observer program, and research initiatives, take into account potential impacts of the fishery on non-target species and on ecosystem functions as a low trophic species. Information from the observer program provides information about impacts on non-target species. Available information from landing data, hydroacustic surveys and gut contents can be used to inform ecosystem models and to define key elements of the ecosystem.
Results from the Ecopath ecosystem models for south Gulf of California provide an understanding of the role of thread herring and bocona sardine in the pelagic
ecoystem, but don’t provide information to inform appropriate biomass levels for ecosystem function. The team acknowledges that there are efforts underway to answer this question through Ecosim models.
Justification There are also a number of measures, all useful for potentially mitigating impacts on key components of the ecosystem (e.g. NOMs protecting certain key species, stock assessment for small pelagics, the SPFMP etc.).
The protection of marine ecosystem is listed as an important consideration for establishing the Optimum Yield, however, there is no evidence of triggers that would implement emergent policy actions required to maintain ecosystem structure and function. Currently Bmin is used only to manage stock health and cannot serve one of its primary purposes to prevent damages to the ecosystem structure. Due to the lack of procedural linkages in management measures to continue achieving outcome related to aims of PI 2.5 to restrain ecosystem impacts this scoring issue does not reach SGO 80. This element is scored at SG 60 Estuarine Communities There implementation of the on-board observer program is considered a partial strategy in place designed to assure that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to estuarine or nursery habitats. However, the strategy does not currently have measures relevant to the main risk to estuarine communities which is likely to be mortality of juvenile fish.
This element is scored at SG 60 c The measures are The partial strategy is The measures are considered considered likely to considered likely to likely to work based on prior work, based on work, based on experience, plausible argument plausible argument plausible argument or information directly from (e.g., general (e.g., general the fishery/ecosystems
experience, theory or experience, theory or involved. comparison with comparison with similar similar
Guidepost fisheries/ecosystems). fisheries/ecosystems). Met? Y Y (Pelagic)/Y N (Estuarine)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 157 of 264
Pelagic Ecosystems The measures in place would work as part of the implementation of the Small Pelagics Fisheries. This scoring issue reaches SG80 but not SG100 because the without a time bound strategy in place it’s difficult to ensure that the measures will work effectively. This element is scored at SG 80
Estuarine Communities There is evidence that the on-board observer program is working, considering that
information at the species level is recorded for all bycatch species, there is an objective basis for confidence that with volume to length conversions this measure could work to provides protection to estuarine and nursery areas. Without a strategy in place SG 100 is not possible.
Justification This element is scored at SG 80 d There is some evidence There is evidence that the that the measures measures are being
comprising the partial implemented successfully. strategy are being implemented
Guidepost successfully. Met? Y (Pelagic)/Y N (Estuarine) Pelagic Ecosystems There is evidence that some measures to consider ecosystem impacts are being implemented successfully. These include the onboard observer vessel, the use of ecosystem models, and hydroacoustic surveys. This element is scored at SG 80
Estuarine Communities The on-board observer program is being implemented successfully, however it is only considered part of a partial strategy thus this element does not meet SG 100
Justification and is scored at SG 80. References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
2-6. Demonstrate that partial strategy for small pelagics takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the pelagic ecosystem so as to continue to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 158 of 264
2-7. Demonstrate that partial strategy for bycatch takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the estuarine ecosystem so as to continue to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is adequate Information is to identify the key adequate to broadly elements of the understand the key ecosystem (e.g., trophic elements of the structure and function, ecosystem.
community composition, productivity pattern and
Guidepost biodiversity). Met? Y Y Information obtained from landings, stomach content analysis, and the on-board observer program is available and is considered accurate enough to provide a broad understanding of the function of thread herring in the ecosystem The SG 80 is met
Justificatio n b Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between the fishery on these key fishery on these key fishery and these ecosystem ecosystem elements ecosystem elements elements can be inferred from
can be inferred from can be inferred from existing information, and have existing information, existing information been investigated. and have not been and some have been
Guidepost investigated in detail. investigated in detail. Met? Y Y N The main impacts of the fishery with non-target species have been investigated as part of the on-board observer program. Interactions of thread herring with other ecosystem elements have also been
investigated through predator stomach content analysis and preliminary ecosystem modelling. There is also an understanding of effect of environmental factors on the small pelagics fishery in the Gulf of California.
Justification The SG 80 is met
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 159 of 264
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem c The main functions of The impacts of the fishery on the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and target, Bycatch, ETP species are identified and
Retained and ETP the main functions of these species and Habitats) Components in the ecosystem in the ecosystem are are understood.
Guidepost known. Met? Y N There is a general knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on target, bycatch, retained and ETP species. The main inter-relationships of thread herring as a
forage species are understood. This scoring issue does not meet SG100 because there is limited information on the impacts of the fishery on all of these ecosystem components.
Justification The SG 80 is met d Sufficient information Sufficient information is is available on the available on the impacts of the impacts of the fishery fishery on the Components and on these Components elements to allow the main
to allow some of the consequences for the main consequences ecosystem to be inferred. for the ecosystem to
Guidepost be inferred. Met? Y N The information available on the impacts of the fishery is currently not sufficient to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Efforts on ecosystem models, are currently not at a stage where this is possible to infer the main consequences of the removal of thread herring and bocona sardines in the southern Gulf Ecosystem. However, information from ecosystem models in the
Northern Gulf of California could be used to allow to infer some of the main consequences of small pelagics on ecosystems.
The SG 80 is met
Justification
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 160 of 264
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem e Sufficient data Information is sufficient to continue to be support the development of collected to detect strategies to manage any increase in risk ecosystem impacts. level (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the
operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the
Guidepost measures). Met? Y N Data continues to be collected through the observer program and landing catch to provide information that allows to detect potential risks. This scoring issue does
not meet SG100 because the current output for ecosystem models in the South GoC cannot be used to ensure that ecosystem biomass requirements inform harvest strategies.
Justification The SG 80 is met References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 161 of 264
Principle 3 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national national legal system national legal system legal system and binding and a framework for and organised and procedures governing cooperation with effective cooperation cooperation with other parties with other parties, other parties, where which delivers management where necessary, to necessary, to deliver deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC
management outcomes consistent Principles 1 and 2. outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 with MSC Principles 1 and 2.
Guidepost and 2 Met? Y Y Y Mexico is a federal presidential constitutional republic and its legal structure is based in the constitution. The Mexican Constitution, in its Article 27, establishes that “The Nation has full ownership over all natural resources of the continental shelf and the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas of the islands.” In order to accomplish this responsibility, the General Law for Sustainable Fisheries and
Aquaculture (Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentable, LGPAS) was decreed in 2007 (DOF, 2007). Although Mexico is not a party to the UNFSA, its policies and regulations are consistent with the primary objectives of that agreement and actively participates in the meetings of the Parties including the Review Conference
Justification mandated by Article 36, held in 2010 (OECD 2013)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 162 of 264
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. b The management The management The management system system incorporates system incorporates or incorporates or subject by law or is subject by law to is subject by law to a to a transparent mechanism a mechanism for the transparent for the resolution of legal resolution of legal mechanism for the disputes that is appropriate to disputes arising within resolution of legal the context of the fishery and the system. disputes which is has been tested and proven to considered to be be effective. effective in dealing
with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the
Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 163 of 264
The LGPAS outlines appeal mechanisms for administrative proceedings that are issued with the application of corresponding infractions and legal sanctions for the violations of regulations in the LGPAS outlined in Chapters I to IV. The resolution of legal disputes and appeals are subject to the Federal Law on Administrative Procedure (Ley Federal de Procedimientos Administrativos, LFPA), which outlines the definition and process of the administrative actions by the federal government, and how these actions can be review and nullified when there is a legal dispute (DOF 1994).
Section V of the General Law for the Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente, LGEEPA), describes specifications for Environment Impact Assessments that are put in place when fishing activities threaten the preservation of one or more aquatic species. Chapters IV, V and VI outline the corresponding legal procedures procedures for administrative sanctions, resolutions reviews, and federal order offenses (DOF 1988).
At the SG 80 there is evidence that a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes exists in the specifications on LGPAS, articles 127-130, that specify how from sanctions at field fisheries officers have to summit the case to the Public Ministry, which is an independent body of the judiciary and the executive, which is responsible for investigating the offenses based on evidence. The current legal framework is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery because the principles and mechanism establish in LGPAS in Chapter I related with the distribution of competences (or power articles 6 to 10), Chapter II of Coordination (articles 11 and 12), and Chapter III of Concurrence (articles 13 to 16). This group of articles explain the distribution of responsibilities and capacity of action at Federal, State and Municipal level for dealing with fishery issues. Therefore a score of 80 is warranted.
However, there is no evidence that the system has been tested, nor that its effectiveness has been evaluated. Therefore the SG 100 is not met.
Justification d The management The management The management system has a system has a system has a mechanism to formally commit mechanism to mechanism to observe to the legal rights created
generally respect the the legal rights created explicitly or established by legal rights created explicitly or established custom of people dependent
Guidepost explicitly or by custom of people on fishing for food and
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 164 of 264
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. established by custom dependent on fishing livelihood in a manner of people dependent for food or livelihood in consistent with the objectives on fishing for food or a manner consistent of MSC Principles 1 and 2. livelihood in a manner with the objectives of consistent with the MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y The main purpose of the LGPAS as defined in Article 1 is: “regulating, promoting and managing the use of fishery and aquaculture resources [….] establishing the basis for the exercise of those attributions of the federation, states and municipalities, under the overarching principles of concurrences and with the participation of fishers…. with the purpose of promoting the integral and sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture,” and are in accordance of Principle 1 and 2 of the MSC. Article 72 of the LGPAS includes definitions of fishing for food and livelihood, the rights for this fishery, fishing gear allowed and normativity are stated. This meets the SG80.
Article 72 of the LGPAS allows fishing without permits when fishing for food and livelihood by people that lives at the coast. This article 72 prohibits the selling of the product that was fished for food and livelihood and without permit. The rights for indigenous peoples to fish as food and for cultural rituals are given priority and
special considerations and are recognized and allowed (OECD 2013). That is the case of the Cucapa people that live at the Colorado Delta in the states of Baja California and Sonora, and the Seri people that live in the state of Sonora (OECD
Justification 2013). This meet the SG 100. DOF. 1988. Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección del Ambiente. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 28 de enero de 1988. DOF. 1994. Ley Federal de Procedimientos Administrativos. Diario Oficial de la References Federación. 4 de agosto de 1994. DOF. 2007. Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 24 de Julio de 2007.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 165 of 264
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. OECD Review of Fisheries: Policies and Summary Statistics 2013 (DOI:10.1787/rev_fish-2013-en)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 166 of 264
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals individuals involved in individuals involved in involved in the management the management the management process have been identified. process have been process have been Functions, roles and identified. Functions, identified. Functions, responsibilities are explicitly roles and roles and defined and well understood responsibilities are responsibilities are for all areas of responsibility generally understood. explicitly defined and and interaction. well understood for
key areas of responsibility and
Guidepost interaction. Met? Y Y Y
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 167 of 264
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Chapter I “Distribution of Responsibilities” of the First Title of the LGPAS, describes the roles and responsibilities of the different agencies in the fisheries management system in the Articles 6 to 10 of the law. In Article 7 the LGPAS establish that for the coordination with other Federal Secretaries, the specification in the Organic Law of the Federal Public Administration have to be followed. And in Article 9 and 10 the role of SEMARNAT and SEMAR (Secretaria de Marina, Navy Secretary) are specify for supporting the fisheries legal system. Chapter II, “Of Coordination”, specify the mechanism for coordination between the Federal, State and Municipal governments in Articles 11 and 12. And chapter III of the LGPAS, “Of the Concurrence”, the LGPAS establishes the responsibilities at Federal, State and Municipal level in Articles 13 to 16.
The Advisory Committee for the Normalization of Agricultural Food Production (Consejo Consultivo para la Normalización Agroalimentaria) is an advisor committee for SAGARPA, which objective is to propose, compile, review, approve, modified, cancel, publish and broadcast Mexican official norms related with the food production based on agriculture, livestock, aquaculture and fisheries. In the case of regulations for aquaculture and fisheries, the Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing is in charge of this sector (DOF 2012c). Therefore agencies
involved in management processes are identified, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for both key and all main areas of responsibility. Therefore the SG100 is met.
Justification b The management The management The management system system includes system includes includes consultation processes consultation processes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept that obtain relevant that regularly seek and relevant information, including information from the accept relevant local knowledge. The main affected parties, information, including management system including local local knowledge. The demonstrates consideration of knowledge, to inform management system the information and explains
the management demonstrates how it is used or not used. system. consideration of the
Guidepost information obtained. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 168 of 264
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Part of the system for consultation is led by CONAPESCA through the National Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Consejo Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura, CNPA) and the State Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Consejo Estatal de Pesca y Acuicultura, CEPA) (DOF 2007). The CNPA is an inter-sectorial forum mandated by the LGPAS, for the support, coordination, consultation and assistance for the fisheries management decisions chaired by SAGARPA. The CNAP includes representatives from the Federal regulatory organizations, social organizations, and fisheries and aquaculture producers groups. The CNPA defines the management objectives of the Fisheries Management Plans (DOF 2007).
The CEPA is council similar to the CNPA, also mandated under LGPAS, operating at a state level. CEPA also helps to define the management objectives for the Fisheries Management Plan (DOF 2007).
The advisory Committee for the Normalization of Agricultural Food Production (Consejo Consultivo para la Normalización Agroalimentaria) is an advisor committee for SAGARPA, whose objective is to propose, compile, review, approve, modify, cancel, publish and broadcast Mexican official norms related with the food production based on agriculture, livestock, aquaculture and fisheries. The Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing (Comite Consultivo Nacional de Normalizacion de Pesca Responsable) is responsible for regulations relevant to fisheries the (DOF 2012c). The Committee and sub-committees members belong to the governmental, industrial, productive, academic, service and consumer sectors. This composition ensures the participation of all stakeholders of the fisheries. Therefore the SG 80 is met.
At the SG 100, evidence of clear explanation of the use and not use of information for management decisions is not documented. The consultation process is at national level, and ther is a lack of explanation of how the information is used or not used for the specific fishery.
Justification c The consultation The consultation process process provides provides opportunity and opportunity for all encouragement for all
interested and affected interested and affected parties parties to be involved. to be involved, and facilitates
Guidepost their effective engagement. Met? Y Y
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 169 of 264
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties CNPA and CEPA function as inter-institutional forums, including parties from different governmental agencies, industry groups and academia, which propose and inform INAPESCA of the objectives of the fishery to be included in the fishery management plan (DOF 2007). During the structuring of the management plan INAPESCA holds a series Public Consultation Meetings to provide public participation in the planning. This consultation process assures the participation of all stakeholders to guarantee a responsible management of the fishery.
The Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing , responsible for proposing, compiling, reviewing, approving and publishing Mexican official norms related to fisheries also includes members from the government, industry, productive, academic, non-governmental, service and consumer sectors. This composition ensures the participation of all stakeholders of the fisheries. (DOF 2012c). Therefore the SG80 is met.
Consultation encourages and facilitates active engagement by regular meetings of the on committees involved, assuring the public participation by Public Consultations of the drafts of Norms, CNP and Management plans before they are published in the final version. Therefore the SG 100 is met.
Justificati DOF. 2007. Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 24 de Julio de 2007. DOF. 2012b. Acuerdo por el que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarelas y afines) del References Noroeste de México. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación 8 de noviembre de 2012. DOF. 2012c. Acuerdo por el que se expiden las Reglas para la creación, integración, organización y operación del Comité Consultivo Nacional de Normalización Agroalimentaria. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 26 de noviembre de 2012. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 170 of 264
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Long-term objectives Clear long-term Clear long-term objectives that to guide decision- objectives that guide guide decision-making, making, consistent decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles with the MSC consistent with MSC and Criteria and the Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria precautionary approach, are and the precautionary and the precautionary explicit within and required by
approach, are implicit approach are explicit management policy. within management within management
Guidepost policy policy. Met? Y Y Y The long-term objectives of the Mexican management policy are established in the LGPAS, in Articles 1 and 2. For delivering sustainable fisheries, the objectives of the LGPAS listed in Article 2 include: “I. To establish and define the principles to regulate, promote and applied an integral management under a sustainable manner.” and “III. To establish the basis for the ordination, conservation, protection, repopulation and sustainable utilization of fisheries and aquaculture resources, as well as the protection and rehabilitation of those ecosystems in which these resources are.”
The SPFMP similarly follows the precautionary approach (DOF 2012b, page 12), with agreement with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which Mexico has promoted and signed.
Therefore because the precautionary approach is embedded in the LGPAS and the FAO code of conduct (which is referenced in the SPFMP) these approaches are explicit, and under the LGPAS, legally binding. Therefore, the SG100 is met. In the case of the small pelagic fishery the objectives to reach a sustainable production are stated. However, the time frame of how to reach the objectives are not clearly stated.
Justification DOF. 2007. Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 24 de Julio de 2007. DOF. 2012b. Acuerdo por el que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para References la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarelas y afines) del Noroeste de México. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación 8 de noviembre de 2012.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 171 of 264
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.4
The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing PI 3.1.4 and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The management The management The management system system provides for system provides for provides for incentives that are incentives that are incentives that are consistent with achieving the consistent with consistent with outcomes expressed by MSC achieving the achieving the Principles 1 and 2, and outcomes expressed outcomes expressed by explicitly considers incentives by MSC Principles 1 MSC Principles 1 and 2, in a regular review of and 2. and seeks to ensure management policy or
that perverse procedures to ensure they do incentives do not arise. not contribute to
Guidepost unsustainable fishing practices. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 172 of 264
The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing PI 3.1.4 and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing The Mexican Federal Government provides funding for research programs run by INAPESCA and other academic institutions. INAPESCA presents the results of these studies to CONAPESCA and/or CNPA and CEPA, to help for inform management decisions. The incentives are considered in the regular review by this committee.
Research related to small pelagic fisheries is shared and updated annually between academia, scientist, federal authorities, local fishers and industry, through the Small Pelagic Technical Committee as described in the SPFMP (2012b). This information may be used by management as needed.
There are no subsidies except for the widespread subsidy that discounts the coast of fuel for primary level producers i.e. agriculture and fisheries, to promote a sustainable production for food security. (Direct funding by the Federal Government trough SAGARPA can be obtained by the Program for the Promotion of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Productivity. The main objective of this program is to stimulate the sustainable production of fishing products, to promote their consumption and to strengthen their management and the surveillance of fishing activities (DOF 2014) Based on the above, the SG80 is met. However, there is not currently a process
that regularly reviews management policy or procedures as per the SG 100 to ensure that they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices such as fishing size classes of immature fish, in contravention of the NOM.
Justification DOF. 2007. Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 24 de Julio de 2007. DOF. 2012b. Acuerdo por el que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarelas y afines) del Noroeste de México. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación 8 de noviembre de References 2012. DOF 2014. Acuerdo por el que se dan a conocer las reglas de operación de los programas de la secretaría de agricultura, ganadería, desarrollo rural, pesca y alimentación. Diario Oficial de la Federación 28 de diciembre de 2014.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 173 of 264
The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent objectives, which are short and long-term objectives, with achieving the consistent with which are demonstrably outcomes expressed achieving the consistent with achieving the by MSC’s Principles 1 outcomes expressed by outcomes expressed by MSC’s and 2, are implicit MSC’s Principles 1 and Principles 1 and 2, are explicit
within the fishery’s 2, are explicit within within the fishery’s management system the fishery’s management system.
Guidepost management system. Met? Y Y N
Objectives of the fishery are stated in all official documents without clear distinction between short term and long term objectives. However, it can be deduced that the long term objectives of the fishery are those in accordance with the LGPAS. The objectives of the SPFMP, given shorter (i.e. seasonally or midterm) timeframes for completion, include:
Resources: To maintain the stock in a sustainable level by controlling the fishing effort that can be applied in the fishery. The level of effort should reflect that the pooled total hold capacity is the same as the estimated optimal, and is controlled by the number of fishing permits (number of fishing vessels). The fishing vessels size and storage characteristics and the allowed fishing gear characteristics are also considered.
Economic: To optimize the economic yield by controlling the minimum size of capture, to assure a high level of recruitment. To promote efficient and economically profitable management measures. To provide fisheries forecast information to fisheries companies and authorities for the programming and planning of their activities.
Social: To conserve the economic benefit of the fishery by promoting the generation of employment and income, and to contribute to cover the real cost of management, fisheries research and inspection and surveillance.
Environment: To minimize the impact of fishing operations in the ecosystem, particularly in
area with ecological significance, and to promote responsible fishing practices.
Therefore the SG 80 is met. However, no timeframes are given, therefore objectives are not measureable and the SG 100 is not met.
Justification DOF. 2012b. Acuerdo por el que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarelas y afines) del References Noroeste de México. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación 8 de noviembre de 2012.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 174 of 264
The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are some There are established decision-making decision-making processes in place that processes that result in result in measures and measures and
strategies to achieve strategies to achieve the fishery-specific the fishery-specific
Guidepost objectives. objectives. Met? Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 175 of 264
The general decision-making process in Mexico includes the participation of the CNPA, CEPA, as stated in the LGPAS and more recently the CCNNA. The instruments that are used to apply the management decisions are the Official Mexican Norms, the National Fishery Chart (CNP) and the SPFMP. Then CONAPESCA is responsible for management, coordination and policy development related to the sustainable use and exploitation of fisheries and aquatic resources. CONAPESCA’s responsibilities include management of the fisheries in the country, guiding the development of fishery specific regulations and fisheries management systems and standards such as the NOMs, issuing quota and permitting. The technical advisor for CONAPESCA is INAPESCA. Fishing violations are penalized under the terms of the Fisheries Act and its Regulations and are enforced through coordination between CONAPESCA and the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA). The CNAP is conformed by representatives of the Federal regulatory organizations, social organizations, and fisheries and aquaculture producers groups. The CNPA defines the management objectives of the Fisheries Management Plans (DOF 2007). The CEPA is council similar as the CNPA but at state level, mandated by the LGPAS. The CEPA also helps to define the management objectives for the Fisheries Management Plan (DOF 2007). Advisory Committee for the Normalization of Agricultural Food Production (CCNNA) is an advisor committee for SAGARPA, which objective is to propose, compile, review, approve, modified, cancel, publish and broadcast Mexican official norms related with the food production based on agriculture, livestock, aquaculture and fisheries (DOF 2012c). In the case of regulations for aquaculture and fisheries, the Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing is in charge of this sector. The Committee and sub-committees members belong to the governmental, industrial, productive, academic, service and consumer sectors. This composition ensures the participation of all stakeholders of the fisheries. The SPFMP states that the co-management of this fishery is a collaborative, adaptive management system that works through agreement to make decisions (DOF 2012b, pg 43). The Small Pelagic Fisheries Management Plan lists the groups of interest in the fishery, including the organizations involved in the fishery (DOF 2012b). However, there is no documentation or specific protocol for this fishery that outlines the decision-making process employed to achieve the objectives of the fishery, the participants or frequency of meetings for making decisions.
Therefore the SG60 is met because there are some decision making processes in place – mainly at levels of management above the fishery level, and also include for example, well explicit processes to revise NOMs etc, – but there are not
Justification established decision-making processes that are explicit for fishery-specific systems
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 176 of 264
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. that are designed to result in measures and strategies to achieve objectives articulated in the SPFMP.
b Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes processes respond to processes respond to respond to all issues identified serious issues serious and other in relevant research, identified in relevant important issues monitoring, evaluation and research, monitoring, identified in relevant consultation, in a transparent, evaluation and research, monitoring, timely and adaptive manner consultation, in a evaluation and and take account of the wider transparent, timely consultation, in a implications of decisions. and adaptive manner transparent, timely and and take some adaptive manner and
account of the wider take account of the implications of wider implications of
Guidepost decisions. decisions. Met? Y N N Specifically, during the meetings of the Technical Committee on Small Pelagics the information of the fishery is shared and discussed, resulting in recommendations and advice to INAPESCA related with the fisheries performance. However, there is no documentation or specific protocol for this fishery that explains how is the decision-making process works to achieve the objectives of the fishery, and about who participates and how frequent the meetings for taking decisions are. Even though a harvest strategy exists for both bocona sardine and
thread herring (Jacob-Cervantes 2015 a) and b), their use under the decision- making process is not documented. This means that the capacity of the decision- making process cannot be evaluated, and there is no evidence of how the control
Justification rules of the fishery have been applied during the management of the fishery. c Decision-making processes use the precautionary
approach and are based on best available
Guidepost information. Met? Y
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 177 of 264
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. The SPFMP follows the precautionary approach (DOF 2012b, page 12), with agreement with the FAO Code of Conduct for the Responsible Fisheries, which Mexico promoted and signed (see 3.1.3).
Justification d Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all fishery performance performance and interested stakeholders and management management action is provides comprehensive action is generally available on request, information on fishery available on request to and explanations are performance and management stakeholders. provided for any actions and describes how the actions or lack of management system action associated with responded to findings and findings and relevant relevant recommendations recommendations emerging from research, emerging from monitoring, evaluation and
research, monitoring, review activity. evaluation and review
Guidepost activity. Met? Y Y N The information of the fishery is presented and discussed at the meetings of the Technical Committee on Small Pelagics, which has been recognized as the technical advisor for INAPESCA on the small pelagic fisheries in the SPFMP (DOF 2012b). Reports of the meetings are open to the public. During the meetings of
the Technical Committee on Small Pelagics the information of the fishery is shared and discussed, resulting in recommendations and advice to INAPESCA related with the fisheries performance (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2013a; Cotero Altamirano et al.,
Justification 2014).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 178 of 264
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. e Although the The management The management system or management system or fishery is fishery acts proactively to authority or fishery attempting to comply avoid legal disputes or rapidly may be subject to in a timely fashion with implements judicial decisions continuing court judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. challenges, it is not arising from any legal indicating a disrespect challenges. or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or
regulation necessary for the sustainability
Guidepost for the fishery. Met? Y Y N Specifications about infractions, administrative sanctions, responsibilities and review processes are described and specified in Chapters I, II, III and IV of Fourteenth Title of the LGPAS (DOF 2007). Evidence that the fishery is attempting to comply with the regulations were found in documents of CONAPESCA issued after inspection (Actas de Inspección.pdf) where the officials did not found any
wrongdoing after inspecting the vessels and the catch. But also evidence of infractions to one vessel of the fleet (Acta de Inspección en Flagrancia.pdf) show that one vessel was fishing in shallow waters where fishing with purse-seine nets
Justification are not allowed. Actas de Inspección.pdf (electronic document) Acta de Inspección en Flagrancia.pdf (electronic document) Cotero Altamirano C.E., Haro H., Enciso Enciso C., y Jacob Cervantes M.L. 2014. Memorias del XXII Taller de Pelágicos Menores. Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 29 pp. DOF. 2007. Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 24 de Julio de 2007. DOF. 2012b. Acuerdo por el que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la References Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarelas y afines) del Noroeste de México. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación 8 de noviembre de 2012. Jacob-Cervantes M.L. 2015a. Estimación de la biomasa y regla de control para el manejo de la pesquería de sardina bocona (Cetengraulis mysticetus) en el sur del Golfo de California. Reporte Interno. INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 6 pp. Jacob-Hernandez M.L. 2015b. Biomasa crítica y su aplicación en la regla de control para el manejo de la pesquería de sardina crinuda (Opisthonema spp.) en el sur del Golfo de California. Reporte Interno. INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 6 pp.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 179 of 264
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Vallarta Zárate J.R.F., y Becerra Arroyo D. 2013a. Memorias del XXI Taller de Pelágicos Menores. Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, INAPESCA- SAGARPA. 34 pp.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3-1. At each annual audit, the client should provide evidence that the fishery-specific management system applies an effective decision-making process that resulted in measures and strategies to reach the objectives of the fishery, including actions taken to any wrongdoing during fishing operations
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Monitoring, control A monitoring, control A comprehensive monitoring, and surveillance and surveillance control and surveillance system mechanisms exist, are system has been has been implemented in the implemented in the implemented in the fishery under assessment and fishery under fishery under has demonstrated a consistent assessment and there assessment and has ability to enforce relevant is a reasonable demonstrated an management measures, expectation that they ability to enforce strategies and/or rules.
are effective. relevant management measures, strategies
Guidepost and/or rules. Met? Y N N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 180 of 264
CONAPESCA and INAPESCA conduct monitoring, control and surveillance of the fishery to ensure the compliance with current regulations. In the case of thread herring, landings are monitored, and samples and regular inspections take place at ports of landing/processing plants and on fishing vessels.
Systematic port sampling by INAPESCA started in 1988. Port sampling results are reported internally (Jacob Cervantes 2013b) or at meetings of the Technical Committee on Small Pelagics (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2013a; Cotero Altamirano et al. 2014). Since 2012 a nascent observer program has been established on board of the 10-15% of the fleet, starting with observations on board of one vessel in the 2012-2013 season, increasing to two vessels in the most recent 2013-2014 season (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2013c; Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2015c). Records have been well kept and are resolved clearly to the species level, and also document retention versus discards. Due to the size of the fleet, few vessels are observed, which may bias results, but provide respectable first information to assess non- target interactions.
Fishing operations are tracked by a VMS system to monitor the location of vessels at all times and to enforce the non-entrance into natural protected areas.
Evidence of inspection records by CONAPESCA (Actas de Inspección.pdf) exists where the officials did not find any wrongdoing after inspecting the vessels and the catch. There is evidence of inspection records with flagrancy for one vessel of the fleet (Acta de Inspección en Flagrancia.pdf) showing that one vessel was fishing in shallow waters where fishing with purse-seine nets are not allowed. This evidence shows that the surveillance system has been implemented and enforced. The results of the port sampling and their analysis are used for the assessment of the stock and for the recommendation for the management published in the CNP (DOF 2012a). Also, these results were parts of the rationale of the SPFMP to create the objectives of the plan.
For these reasons, the SG60 is met. However, there is an increment of the catch proportion under the size limit, exceeding the maximum allowed, that occurs systematically without evidence that regulatory actions have been taken. And there is evidence of the retention of prohibited species like Mobula japonica by
the Nayarit section of the fishery (Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2015). Therefore there while there is evidence there is a functional MCS system it is demonstrated to lack the ability to enforce certain relevant management measures, strategies and/or
Justification rules. Therefore the SG 80 is not met.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 181 of 264
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with b Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non- non-compliance exist non-compliance exist, compliance exist, are and there is some are consistently consistently applied and
evidence that they are applied and thought to demonstrably provide effective applied. provide effective deterrence.
Guidepost deterrence. Met? Y N N Chapters I, II, III and IV of Fourteenth Title of the LGPAS include specifications on infractions, administrative sanctions, responsibilities and review processes, respectively (DOF 2007). Evidence of sanctions exists. For example the Acta de Inspección en Flagrancia.pdf (Inspection Record with flagrancy) shows that one vessel was fishing in shallow waters where fishing with purse-seine nets are not allowed. The catch of this vessels was retained by authorities and a find applied to the fishing captain. Therefore, there is evidence that there are sanction to deal with non-compliance and that they are applied, so the SG 60 is met. However, while there are records of sanctions, there is also an increment of the catch proportion under the size limit, exceeding the maximum allowed, that
occurs systematically without evidence that regulatory actions have been taken. Similarly, species with prohibited retention under NOM 029 are regularly retained aboard vessels in the fleet indicating that sanctions are not applied consistently or
Justification thought to provide effective deterrence. Therefore the SG 80 is not met. c Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree of thought to comply to demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply with the management comply with the with the management system system for the fishery management system under assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, providing information of including, when including, when importance to the effective required, providing required, providing management of the fishery. information of information of
importance to the importance to the effective management effective management
Guidepost of the fishery. of the fishery. Met? Y N N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 182 of 264
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Evidence of inspection records by CONAPESCA (Actas de Inspección.pdf) exits. In
some cases officials did not found any wrongdoing after inspecting the vessels and the catch. However, there is evidence of an increment of the catch proportion under the size limit in the landed catches, exceeding the maximum allowed, that
Justification occurs systematically without evidence that regulatory actions have been taken. d There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance.
Guidepost Met? N There is evidence of systematic non-compliances: there is an increment of the catch proportion under the size limit, exceeding the maximum allowed, that
occurs systematically without evidence that regulatory actions have been taken. Retention of prohibited species like Mobula japonica by the Nayarit section of the fishery is systematic without any evidence of sanctions (Jacob-Cervantes et al.
Justification 2015). Therefore the SG 80 is not met. Actas de Inspección.pdf (electronic document) Acta de Inspección en Flagrancia.pdf (electronic document) Cotero Altamirano C.E., Haro H., Enciso Enciso C., y Jacob Cervantes M.L. 2014. Memorias del XXII Taller de Pelágicos Menores. Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 29 pp. DOF. 2012a. Acuerdo por le que se da a conocer la actualización de la Carta Nacional Pesquera. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación 24 de agosto de 2012. Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Becerra Arroyo D., Vallarta Zarate J.R.F., Rendón Martínez J.R., y Payán Alejo J. 2015c. Resultados del programa de observadores a bordo de la References flota sardinera del sur del Golfo de California 2013-2014. Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Vallarta Zárate J.R.F., y Becerra Arroyo D. 2013a. Memorias del XXI Taller de Pelágicos Menores. Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, INAPESCA- SAGARPA. 34 pp. Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Vallarta Zárate J.R.F., Payán Alejo J., Becerra Arroyo D., y de León Herrera R. 2013b. Pesquería de pelágicos menores en el sur del Golfo de California; Análisis biológico-pesquero. Reporte Interno. INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 93 pp. Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Vallarta Zárate J.R.F., Payán Alejo J., Becerra Arroyo D., y de León Herrera R. 2013c. Resultados del programa de observadores a bordo de la flota sardinera del sur del Golfo de California 2012-2013. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60
3-2. Demonstrate that the monitoring, control and surveillance system has an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies, and/or rules.
3-3. Demonstrate that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 183 of 264
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with 3-4. Demonstrate some evidence that fishers comply with the management system and provide information of importance, and that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4
PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Research is A research plan A comprehensive research plan undertaken, as provides the provides the management required, to achieve management system system with a coherent and the objectives with a strategic strategic approach to research consistent with MSC’s approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and Principles 1 and 2. and reliable and timely reliable and timely information information sufficient sufficient to achieve the to achieve the objectives consistent with
objectives consistent MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. with MSC’s Principles 1
Guidepost and 2. Met? Y N N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 184 of 264
PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management
INAPESCA has an active research program based at the CRIP-Mazatlan. The program collects information on the catch and biological sampling to assess the performance of the fishery and the status of the stock.
The Research Plan of the small pelagic fisheries is included in the SPFMP as a Research Program, implying a strong relationship between research and management planning. The program takes into consideration that small pelagic species populations have large changes in their abundance related with the environment and the rate of exploitation. The program suggests that the research must focus into develop adaptive reference points for their management.
However, most of the concerns approached by research outlined in the SPFMP are related to Pacific sardine. The program cover two main areas: 1) Scientific and technological research, and 2) Socioeconomic research. The specific aspects of 1) are outlined in section 3.5.7 Fishery’s Research Plan in the background.
The work being done by the CRIP-Mazatalan, does undertake research as required, and in consultation with the industry, to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. However, this plan is was not provided to the team, and it is not currently clear there are resources available to provide a strategic approach to research and the production of and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The observer program largely addresses aspects of non-target interactions, and some analysis of ecosystem
interactions. However, there is not a clear plan in place to address objectives and n resourcing for deficiencies in the new stock assessment processes for thread herring in the southern Gulf of California, nor is it clear how ecosystem impacts are being clearly researched for this portion of the thread herring stock. Therefore the SG 60,
Justificatio but not the SG 80 is met. b Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are available to interested disseminated to all disseminated to all interested
parties. interested parties in a parties in a timely fashion and timely fashion. are widely and publicly
Guidepost available. Met? Y Y N
Research results are found in reports of different scope from internal INAPESCA reports to scientific publications. The information has been used for several student theses. Results of the monitoring of the fishery and their analysis are shared with interested parties during the yearly meeting of the Technical Committee on Small Pelagics, where the fishing industry, stakeholders, managers and academia participate, and the Abstract Proceedings of the meetings are open to the public (v.g. Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2013a; Cotero Altamirano et al. 2014). The dissemination of the results is not widely and publicly available. Therefore a score
Justification of 80, but not 100, is appropriate. References
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 185 of 264
PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
3-5. Demonstrate that 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
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.5
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.5 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery has in The fishery has in place The fishery has in place place mechanisms to mechanisms to mechanisms to evaluate all
evaluate some parts of evaluate key parts of parts of the management the management the management system.
Guidepost system. system Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 186 of 264
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.5 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system The basis for the fishery management system is stated in the Mexican official Norms, the CNP and the SPFMP.
The Advisory Committee for the Normalization of Agricultural Food Production (CCNNA) objective is to propose, compile, review, approve, modified, cancel, publish and broadcast Mexican official norms related with the food production based on agriculture, livestock, aquaculture and fisheries (DOF 2012c). In the case of regulations for aquaculture and fisheries, the Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing is in charge of this sector.
INAPESCA is in charge of review the CNP and the SPFMP. The CNP updates have happened every two or three years, where the most recent one was published in 2012 (DOF 2012a). And the SPFMP has to be reviewed and updated every year (DOF 2012b).
It can be said that the fishery has mechanisms in place at the SG 80 to evaluate key parts of the management system including landings relative to reference points, catch composition and non-target interactions.
However, at the SG 100 a number of aspects of the fishery-specific management
system are not considered in any systematic fashion and there are not clear mechanisms for this. There is evidence of systematic non-compliances against basic aspects of the CNP and NOMs that do not have mechanisms to address and
Justification rectifiy deficiencies in the management system. b The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system management system is management system is subject
is subject to subject to regular to regular internal and external occasional internal internal and occasional review.
Guidepost review. external review. Met? Y N N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 187 of 264
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.5 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system INAPESCA has mechanism for internal review. During the yearly meetings of the Technical Committee on Small Pelagics, INAPESCA’s monitoring and assessment analysis results are exposed to the committee and discussed by the members. Members of the committee include stakeholders that belong to the industrial sector and external academic institutions (Introduction section in Jacob-Cervantes et al. 2013a and Cotero Altamirano et al. 2014). Since the development of the SPFMP, the Technical Committee on Small Pelagics has been recognized as an
important part of the management system that provides an additional mechanism for internal review of the fishery. However, no formal external review of the management system has been documented. Therefore the SG 60 is met, and the
Justification SG 80 is partially, but not fully met. Cotero Altamirano C.E., Haro H., Enciso Enciso C., y Jacob Cervantes M.L. 2014. Memorias del XXII Taller de Pelágicos Menores. Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 29 pp. DOF. 2012a. Acuerdo por le que se da a conocer la actualización de la Carta Nacional Pesquera. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación 24 de agosto de 2012. DOF. 2012b. Acuerdo por el que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarelas y afines) del References Noroeste de México. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación 8 de noviembre de 2012. DOF. 2012c. Acuerdo por el que se expiden las Reglas para la creación, integración, organización y operación del Comité Consultivo Nacional de Normalización Agroalimentaria. SAGARPA. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 26 de noviembre de 2012. Jacob-Cervantes M.L., Vallarta Zárate J.R.F., y Becerra Arroyo D. 2013a. Memorias del XXI Taller de Pelágicos Menores. Comité Técnico de Pelágicos Menores, INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 34 pp.
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3-6. Demonstrate that the fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 188 of 264
Appendix 1.2 Conditions
Table A1.3:
Condition 1-1
Performance 1.2.1 (Harvest Strategy) Indicator Score 70
Rationale See scoring issue (a) from 1.2.1 The fishery needs to provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock. A robust stock assessment and a harvest control rule Condition with agreed outcomes need to be active and working together towards
achieving the harvest strategy objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.
Surveillance 1 (2017) At this stage, INAPESCA will discuss the implementation of changes in thread herring stock assessment and define the approach that will be used. Expected Outcome: The client will provide a report with the information of the agreements reached in the discussion. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery shall have demonstrated some progress toward the closure of this condition. Progress can be measured in terms of changes on thread herring stock assessment and the start of changes to the management system (negotiations between key parties, drafting of agreements, etc.). Milestones Expected Outcome: Same outcome as surveillance 1 (2017) Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 3 (2019) At this stage, the fishery shall have demonstrated further progress toward the closure of the condition, consistent with the achievement of the condition within the allowed four years. Expected Outcome: The client will provide evidence of the implementation of a robust thread herring stock assessment; reports with the progress in the changes in the management system will be provided; in case of carrying out meetings, minutes with the agreements reached will be submitted. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 4 (2020) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected Outcome: same outcome as surveillance 3; also, active control rule for thread herring sardine will be applied effectively and systematically. Expected score: 80
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 189 of 264
The fishery will provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock. A robust stock assessment and a harvest control rule with agreed outcomes will be active and working together towards achieving the harvest strategy objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.
The client will collaborate with INAPESCA (Technical/Scientific body) in the research respect to thread herring for the implementation of a robust stock assessment to determine the status of each thread herring species.
The client action The outcomes of this stock assessment will be taken into account for the plan estimation of the Control Rule; these results will be reflected in a technical
report that will be the basis for decision making for the management, ensuring that the fishery does not pose a risk for the populations of thread herring.
Control rule outcomes will be announced through a technical meeting early year and/or seasonal to the industry and CONAPESCA (Administrative body) for systematic and effective implementation.
The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe. The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed.
Condition 1-2
Performance 1.2.1 (Harvest Strategy) Indicator Score 70
Rationale See scoring issue (c) from 1.2.1
The target reference point needs to be explicitly determined so that it can work Condition with the rest of the strategy to achieve its objectives.
Surveillance 1 (2017). At this stage, INAPESCA will discuss the explicitly determination of the target reference point and proposing a methodology to reach this goal. Milestones Expected Outcome: The client will provide minutes signed by the participants of the agreements reached in the meetings; the methodology to determine the target reference point will be submitted. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 190 of 264
Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, literature and information about the determination of the TRP will be reviewed and the analysis for determining of the target reference point will have started. Expected Outcome: The client will provide a technical report showing the progress in the determination of the TRP. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 3 (2019) At this stage, the Target Reference Point for the thread herring sardine fishery will be determined and established. The stakeholders will have a meeting with reviewers of INAPESCA to discuss the addition of the TRP in the regulatory documents, including the Management Plan, before its publication in the Official Federal Gazette (DOF, for its acronym in Spanish). Expected Outcome: The client will provide a technical report showing the progress in the determination of the TRP; a minute of the agreements reached and reviews made in the meetings. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Surveillance 4 (2020) At this point, the Target Reference Point will be included in the Management Plan and other regulatory documents. Expected Outcome: The client will provide a final report of the Target Reference Point for the fishery; the Management Plan and other regulatory mechanisms will include the TRP. Expected score: 80
The client will collaborate with INAPESCA in necessary research to determine the target reference point for thread herring.
The fishery will provide evidence that the target reference point have been explicitly determined so that it can work with the rest of the strategy to achieve its objectives. The client action plan These results will be reflected in a technical report, and they will be announced by a technical meeting to the industry and CONAPESCA for systematic and effective implementation. The client in collaboration with INAPESCA and, if it is necessary, stakeholders will make meetings to review, discuss and approve the TRP and its inclusion in the regulatory documents (CNP, MP, etc.) which will be published in the Official Federal Gazette. The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe. The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 191 of 264
Condition 1-3(A)
Performance 1.2.2 (Harvest control rules and tools) Indicator Score 70 Rationale See scoring issue (a) from 1.2.2
The fishery needs to provide evidence that the Harvest Control Rule is effectively Condition in place to ensure that exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are
approached.
Surveillance 1 (2017): The client and INAPESCA will initiate meetings in order to propose the most acceptable mechanisms for limiting, reducing or ceasing fishing when the BAC is being approached. Expected Output: Minute of the meetings signed by the participants with all the agreements reached will be submitted; the main agreed mechanisms will be provided. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery will have demonstrated some changes toward the closure of the condition. The mechanisms for limiting, reducing or ceasing fishing when the biological allowable catch (BAC) of the year is being achieved will be announced. A meeting will be carried out where INAPESCA and the client will discuss the methods to implement the mechanisms for limiting, reducing and ceasing. Some tests of the mechanisms chosen will be carried out to determine their feasibility when the BAC is being approached. Expected Output: The minute of the meeting signed by participants with the agreements reached will be provided; a report of the mechanism selected will Milestones be presented; and a report of progress made after first testing the mechanisms
will be provided. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 3 (2019) At this stage, the client, INAPESCA and CONAPESCA will review and discuss the actions that will be done when the BAC is being approached and They will propose the official document where it will be published (MP, CNP, regulatory agreement, etc.). Expected Outcome: The minute of the meeting signed by the participants for the discussion and review of the mechanisms will be provided. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 4 (2020) Condition expected to be fully met. The mechanisms to limit reduce or cease fishing when the biological allowable catch (BAC) of the year is being approached will be applied explicitly, systematically and effectively. Additionally, these mechanisms will be included in the MP o other regulatory document and published in the Official Federal Gazette (DOF). Expected Outcome: The mechanisms will be established and published by the Official Federal Gazette.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 192 of 264
Expected score: 80
Explicit mechanisms will be presented to limit, reduce or cease fishing as the BAC of the year is being approached, systematic and effective implementation.
The client will collaborate with INAPESCA for implement systematic monitoring at the catch levels to determine the time when the BAC of the year is being achieved. INAPESCA will announce these results through a technical report that will be the basis for decision making for the management (limit, reduce or cease The client action fishing as the BAC of the year is being approached), ensuring that the fishery plan does not a pose a risk for the populations of thread herring. These mechanisms are defined in the Management Plan.
For the implementation of these mechanisms, the technical report will be release through technical meeting between industry, INAPESCA and CONAPESCA for their systematic and effective application and publication in the Official Federal Gazette (DOF).
The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe. The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed.
Condition 1-3(B)
Performance 1.2.2 (Harvest control rules and tools) Indicator Score 70
Rationale See scoring issue (a) from 1.2.2 Condition Present evidence that the harvest control rules for the thread herring complex are well defined. Surveillance 1 (2017): At this stage, the client in collaboration with the INAPESCA will discuss, analyze and determine of the feasibility of incorporating the best value for the Opisthonema complex to be used as FRACTION in the HCR (harvest control rule). Expected Output: The client in collaboration with the INAPESCA will provide a Milestones technical report with evidence of the utilization of the new value as a FRACTION
in the HCR. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 2 (2018) The determination of the best value to be used as “Fraction” in the Control Rule. Consensus among the different stakeholders will
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 193 of 264
be carried out through the Small Pelagic Committee to reach agreements that generate changes in the Management Plan. Expected Outcome: Minutes of the meeting with the agreements reached will be provided. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 3 (2019) The control rule will be done with the agreements reached with the stakeholders Expected Outcome: Technical reports and minutes of the agreements if it is the case will be provided. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Surveillance 4 (2020) The condition is expected to be fully met. The best FRACTION value determined will be applied effectively and systematically to achieve the strategy objectives. Additionally, this value is expected to be included in the MP o other regulatory document and published in the Official Federal Gazette (DOF). Expected outcome: The value that will be used as FRACTION in the HCR will be included in the MP or other regulatory binding document and published in the Official Federal Gazette (DOF). Expected score: 80
The client will collaborate with INAPESCA to perform the necessary research to determine the best number to use as “FRACTION” in the Control Rule, to work effectively and appropriately in the estimation of exploitation rate and achieve the objectives established by the harvest control rule.
These results will be announced in a technical report through a technical The client action meeting to the industry and CONAPESCA, for systematic and effective plan implementation.
The value that will be used as FRACTION in the HCR is expected to be included in the MP or other regulatory binding document and published in the Official Federal Gazette (DOF).
The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.
The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed.
Condition 1-4
Performance 1.2.2 (Harvest control rules and tools) Indicator
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 194 of 264
Score 70
Rationale See scoring issue (c) from 1.2.2 The default value of the limit reference point (as fishing mortality used for the Condition Control Rule) needs to be computed specifically for TH to better represent the
specific characteristics of the species.
Surveillance 1 (2017) The stakeholders will initiate meetings in order to discuss the design of the methodology that will be used in the determination of the limit reference point for thread herring to have a better representation of the specific characteristics of these species. Expected Outcome: The client will provide minutes of the meetings with the agreement reached. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery shall have demonstrated some changes toward the closure of the condition. Progress can be measured by starting the investigations to determine the specific value for the limit reference point used in the Control Rule. Also, some preliminary results of a formal analysis will be obtained by applying the agreed methodology previously. Expected Outcome: A technical report of progress will be provide in order to submit the principal preliminary results obtained after the first tests. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Milestones Surveillance 3 (2019): The progress at this stage can be measured by continuing investigations to determinate the specific value for the limit reference point used in the Control Rule. Once it has been determined the specific value for the TRP, the consensus among stakeholders will start through the Small Pelagic Committee to generate agreements that result in changes in the Management Plan or other regulatory document, to include the values determined for thread herring. Expected Outcome: The client will provide the minute of the meeting with the agreement reached to add the TRP into the MP. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage
Surveillance 4 (2020) The condition is expected to be fully met. The best specific value for the TRP will be applied effectively and systematically to achieve the strategy objectives. Additionally, the specific values of TRP are expected to be included in the MP o other regulatory document and published in the Official Federal Gazette (DOF). Expected outcome: The specific value for the TRP will be included in the MP or other regulatory binding document and published in the Official Federal Gazette (DOF). Expected score: 80 The client action plan The client will collaborate with INAPESCA for perform the necessary research to determine the specific value for the limit reference point for thread herring used
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 195 of 264
in the Control Rule, to work effectively and appropriately to achieve the exploitation levels established by the harvest control rule.
It will make the necessary agreements between stakeholders also so that these changes can be incorporated into the Management Plan.
The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.
The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed.
Condition 1-5
Performance 1.2.2 (Harvest control rules and tools) Indicator
Score 70
Rationale See scoring issue (c) from 1.2.2
Tools such as effort control and size limits need to be closely monitored to assure Condition that are met accordingly with the standards set in the regulatory documents. This is needed to verify that the tools are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules.
Surveillance 1 (2017) The client will support INAPESCA for the monitoring and tracing fishery and the divulgation of outcomes at the stakeholder (The client, INAPESCA and CONAPESCA) will be initiated through systematic technical meetings. Expected Output: The client will provide the minutes of the meetings and technical reports. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage. Milestones Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery will have demonstrated some changes toward the closure of the condition. Progress can be measured in terms of outcomes analysis, technical meetings among stakeholders (Client, INAPESCA and CONAPESCA) for the outcomes dissemination and reaching agreements respect to status of the stock, systematic application, monitoring and tracing fishery, changes in abundance above biological levels or the preparation for changes in the management system (negotiations between key parties, drafting agreements, etc.) in line with its interpretation as a “partial strategy”. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 196 of 264
Expected Outcome: The client will provide minutes of the technical meetings signed by all participants; a technical report of progress will be provided with the results of the systematic monitoring of the fishery. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Surveillance 3 (2019) At this stage, the fishery will have demonstrated further progress toward the closure of the condition, the progress may be measured by quarterly technical reports with information of the fishery monitoring and the application of the tools and guidelines established in the regulatory documents (MP, CNP, etc.) in order to ensure the sustainability of the resource. Expected Outcome: The client will provide reports with the information of the monitoring. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Surveillance 4 (2020) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected Output: The client will provide reports or minutes with information that prove that the fishery is being closely monitoring accordingly with the standards set in the regulatory documents.
Expected score: 80
The client will collaborate with INAPESCA to do an continuous monitoring of the fishery assessment (catch, effort and size, etc.) to ensure that the management tools established (effort control and limits of the size of first allowable catch) are applied in accordance with current regulations, systematic and effectively. The results of these monitoring and the fishery tracing will be announced through a technical report in quarterly technical meetings with the participation of the client, INAPESCA and CONAPESCA; in case of exceeding the guidelines The client action established in control tools will be announced the relevant management plan measures, which are defined in the Management Plan to ensure the resource sustainability. These measures will be implemented effectively and systematically. This will allow ensure that the regulations established are met, and verify that tools are effective in achievement of exploitation levels required by harvest control rule. The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.
The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed.
Condition 1-6
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 197 of 264
Performance 1.2.3 (Information y monitoring) Indicator
Score 75
Rationale See scoring issue (b) from 1.2.3
Because stock assessments are key elements of a harvest strategy, and stock assessments require reliable indices of abundance, the acoustic surveys need to Condition be conducted on a regular basis to feed this important element of the harvest
strategy. These surveys need to be consolidated and their methods refined to be able to support the control rule.
Surveillance 1 (2017) Continuation with the biomass assessment by hydro acoustic methods. Expected Outcome: The client will present a report of progress of the hydroacoustic surveys Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery will have demonstrated some progress toward the closure of this condition. Progress can be measured in terms of changes in the thread herring biomass assessment by hydro acoustic methods in the Southern Gulf of California. The analysis for specific thread herring complex assessment will be initiated. Results will be announced through reports that will be presented in technical meetings attended by stakeholder. Expected Outcome: The client will submit technical reports of progress with the main results of the specific thread herring complex assessment. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage. Milestones
Surveillance 3 (2019) Systematic acoustic researches and specific evaluation of the stock of thread herring will be continued. Also, technical meetings among stakeholder for the application of the specific evaluation for thread herring in the control rule will be carried out. The use of “Target strength” will be analyzed and discussed so that it can be applied with more robustness in assessments of thread herring. Expected Outcome: The minutes of the meetings signed by all participants will be provided; also, minutes of the discussion, analysis and agreements of the use of specific target strength for thread herring will be submitted. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 4 (2020) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected Outcome: A final technical report with the results of the hydroacoustic survey will be provide. Expected score: 80
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 198 of 264
The client will collaborate with INAPESCA for conducting research for biomass assessment through acoustic methods. This research will be regular and focused on the analysis and consolidation of its methods for that “Target strength” parameters used can be applied with more strength to the thread herring. In addition, these assessments will tend to be carried out at specific level The client action including different species of Opisthonema complex. This will allow obtain plan abundance index independents of the fishery, systemic and reliable, that can be
include in the harvest strategy. Obtained results in this research will be announced through a technical meeting to stakeholder for their effective and systematic application in Control Rule. The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.
The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed.
Condition 1-7
Performance 1.2.4 (Assessment of Stock Status) Indicator
Score 65
Rationale See scoring issue (c) from 1.2.4
The stock assessment methodology needs to be improved to resolve the current Condition inconsistencies shown between the VPA and Multispecies Production models. This type of model uncertainty needs to be accounted for increasing the reliability of the assessment methodology to support the harvest strategy
Surveillance 1 (2017) Analysis and discussions will be carried out to design the methodology that will be used to solve inconsistencies in VPA and Multispecies Production models for thread herring to increase the reliability of the Milestones assessment methodology. Expected Outcome: The client will provide a technical report with the progress obtained in this issue.
Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 199 of 264
Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery shall have demonstrated some progress toward the closure of this condition. Progress can be measured by analyzing the inconsistencies between the VPA and multispecies production models. Expected Outcome: The client will provide a technical report with the analysis of the inconsistencies. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 3 (2019) At this stage, the fishery will have demonstrated further progress toward the closure of the condition; progress may be measured by implementing a more robust methodology for evaluating the stock taking into account the involved uncertainties. Expected Outcome: A report of progress will be provide with partial results. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Surveillance 4 (2020) Condition is expected to be fully met. Expected Outcome: A final technical report with the main results will be submitted.
Expected score: 80
The client will collaborate with INAPESCA to improve the methodology in stock assessment and provide estimations more robust of biologic and management parameters where take into account involved inconsistencies. The client action plan In addition, factors will be analyzed contributing to the main uncertainties such
as differences in the abundance estimated between assessment methods; the models sensitivity in assumptions on parameters such as natural mortality; or information type included in data, to assess the results validity and increase the reliability assessment methodology that support the harvest strategy.
The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed.
Condition 1-8
Performance 1.2.4 (Assessment of Stock Status) Indicator
Score 65
Rationale See scoring issue (e) from 1.2.4
The stock assessment must be subject to peer review.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 200 of 264
Condition
Surveillance 1 (2017) No improvement or outcome expected Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Surveillance 2 (2018) At this stage, the fishery will have demonstrated some progress toward the closure of this condition. Progress can be measured in terms of the assessment presentation at the Workshop of Small Pelagic Forum. Expected Outcome: The Workshop of Small Pelagic proceedings will be provide. Expected score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage. Milestones Surveillance 3 (2019) At this stage, the progress may be measured by a manuscript submitted to a scientific journal for a peer reviewing. Expected Outcome: A manuscript which will be subject of reviewing will be submitted. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Surveillance 4 (2020) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected Output: A Stock Assessment paper (in press) will be provided. Expected score: 100
The client will collaborate with INAPESCA for that the assessments be subject to The client action peer review. plan The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.
The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 201 of 264
Condition 2-1 Performance 2.1.2 (Retained species: Management) Indicator
Score 75
Rationale See scoring issue (c) from 2.1.2
Condition By the fourth surveillance audit present evidence that the partial strategy for spotted eagle rays is being implemented successfully.
Surveillance 1 (2017) The client in collaboration with INAPESCA will initiate the implementation of biological sampling of commercial landings for the whole fleet by port observers, with special emphasis on sharks, rays and other non-target species of the small pelagic fishery. The client will support Observer Program of INAPESCA with resources for the addition of observer on port. On board observer program continues to operate with 20 % coverage. Expected Output: The client will present evidence that the design of the sampling strategy (port sampling, on board observers and fisher logbooks) is cohesive and feasible, and that the selected monitoring tools, goals and data analysis will provide accurate and reliable date to respond to the conditions for the management and information conditions for retained and bycatch species. Client will present evidence that fishers have received training to collect information on logbooks; Client will present report of finding for corresponding fishing season from on board observer program. Expected Score: No changes in scores are anticipated at this stage. Milestones Surveillance 2 (2018)
At this stage, the fishery will have shown some progress toward closing.
Expected Output: Client will present evidence that logbooks on board the fleet are in place and that estimates for volume of retained and discarded species are collected alongside spatial information of fishing event; data from on board program continues to be collected for the registration of retained and discarded species, detailed information on the biology of eagle and devil rays (size, maturity, sex, etc.) and other non-target species of the fishery; Information on retained species from port observers.
Expected Score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 3 (2019) At this stage, on board observer program and on port observer will have demonstrated further progress toward the closure of the condition, consistent with the achievement of the condition within the allowed four years.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 202 of 264
Expected Output: Same output as Surveillance 2. Expected Score: No changes in scores are anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 4 (2020) At this stage the action plan provides evidence that the partial strategy for spotted eagle rays is being implemented successfully. The data collected and analyzed respond to the condition. Expected Output: The client will present reports from on board observers, fisher logbooks and port sampling, which show the sampling strategy is implemented and in place; the client will present evidence that there is in place a data quality control system that evaluates consistency between the three monitoring tools (on board observers, fisher logbooks and port sampling) for authentication and accuracy.
Expected Score: 80
Evidence will be present to show that the strategy for managing retained and bycatch species is being carried out s, successfully, and that information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk levels. The client will cooperate with the INAPESCA to carry out a sampling strategy resulting in obtaining timely and adequate information concerning the biology (size structure, maturity, sex, weight, etc.) of the spotted eagle rays and other non-target species of the fleet. This strategy will be implemented by the observer on board vessels as well as observer from port. The biological information obtained will processed, analyzed and compared with the scientific The client action information available for the species. plan The client in collaboration with INAPESCA will continue to implement the
mitigation measures established on all boats and will obtained records of these events in the blogs and photo files. The client in collaboration with INAPESCA will implement the use of logbooks in all vessels of the sardine fleet in order to obtain detailed record of the target catch, incidental, ETP and retained species, as well as registration of the implementation of mitigation measures complying with the provisions of NOM- 029-PESC. The implementation of the action plan will be systematic and effective to achieve the objectives of the strategy for managing retained species on Principle 2. The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed (See INAPESCA letter of support below).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 203 of 264
Condition 2-2
Performance 2.1.3 (Retained species: Information) Indicator
Score 75
Rationale See scoring issue (d ) from 2.1.3
Condition Demonstrate that sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level for spotted eagle rays and devil rays.
Milestones See “Milestone” for Condition 2-1
The client action See “Client Action Plan” for Condition 2-1 plan
Consultation on See “Consultation on Condition” for Condition 2-1 condition
Condition 2-3
Performance 2.2.2 (Bycatch species: Management) Indicator
Score 75
Rationale See scoring issue (c) from 2.2.2
Condition Present evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully for cownose rays.
Milestones See “Milestone” for Condition 2-1
The client action See “Client Action Plan” for Condition 2-1 plan
Consultation on See “Consultation on Condition” for Condition 2-1 condition
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 204 of 264
Condition 2-4
Performance 2.2.3 (Bycatch species: Information) Indicator
Score 75
Rationale See scoring issue (d) from 2.2.3
Condition Demonstrate that sufficient data continues to be collected to detect any
increase in risk to cownose rays.
Milestones See “Milestone” for Condition 2-1
The client action See “Client Action Plan” for Condition 2-1 plan
Consultation on See “Consultation on Condition” for Condition 2-1 condition
Condition 2-5
Performance 2.3.3 (ETP species: Information) Indicator
Score 75
Rationale See scoring issue (a) from 2.3.3
Demonstrate that sufficient information is available to allow fishery related Condition mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP
species.
Surveillance 1 (2017) Fishers will be trained on the use and implementation of logbooks on board vessels of the fleet for the registration of ETP species.
Milestones Expected Output: The client will provide the files of the fishers training
(diplomas, attendance, photos, report, etc.).
Expected Score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 2 (2018)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 205 of 264
At this stage, the fishery will demonstrate further progress toward the closure of the condition, consistent with use logbooks on board vessels of the fleet for the registration of species with special protection status (ETP). Expected Output: The client will present evidence that logbooks on board the fleet are in place and the sighting and application of mitigation measures of ETP species are collected alongside spatial information of fishing event data and evidence (photographs) from on-board observer program continue to be collected for the registration of information on ETP species and detailed information of the application of mitigation measures.
Expected Score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage. Surveillance 3 (2019) At this stage, the fishery will have shown some progress toward closing this condition. Progress can be measured in terms of quantitative information on sightings and implementation of mitigation measures of organisms found on a special protection status (ETP) within the vessels of the fleet of small pelagic southern Gulf of California. Expected Output: Same output as Surveillance 2. Expected Score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 4 (2020) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected Output: The client will present reports using the information obtained by captains logbooks and pictures as evidence to demonstrate that strategy for special protection status species (ETP) is being implemented in place; The client will present evidence that there is in place a data quality control system that evaluates consistency between the three monitoring tools (on board observers and fisher logbooks) for authentication and accuracy.
Expected Score: 80
The information from the implementation of logbooks to record species with special protection status (ETP) will be sufficient to allow reliable quantitative estimate of the impact of fishing on species. The client action Customer will cooperate with the INAPESCA to implement the use of logbooks plan systematically aboard vessels in the fleet for the quantitative record of sighting, mortality and implementation of mitigation measures dolphins and other species in special protection status (ETP) in order to obtain data and more accurate and representative information that reveal with greater certainty the impact of fishing on these species. This includes training of fishermen to the success of action plan. The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed (See INAPESCA letter of support below).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 206 of 264
Condition 2-6
Performance 2.5.2 (Ecosystems: Management) Indicator
Score 70
Rationale See scoring issue (b) from 2.5.2
Demonstrate that partial strategy for small pelagic takes into account available Condition information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the pelagic ecosystem so as to continue to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.
Surveillance 1 (2017) Collection of information available and necessary to feed the ecosystem model. Expected Output: The client will create a database which will have information of the species involved in the fishery, the gut content, preys, predators, type of information (scientific literature, grey literature, theses, reports, etc.) on board and on port observers information, etc. Expected Score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Surveillance 2 (2018) The stakeholders will continue the process of organizing and analyzing the information available to facilitate the implementation of an ecosystem model. Information needed for ecosystem analysis is also generated. Moreover, different groups carry out technical meetings to discuss the incorporation of Milestones explicit procedures and linked to management measures. Expected Output: The client will present the information gathered in the database and that will be organize for the implementation of the ecosystem model; the client will provide reports of the meetings that will be carried out in order to discuss the incorporation of procedural linkages. Expected Score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 3 (2019) At this stage, the fishery will be demonstrated further progress toward the closure of the condition. The processing and analysis of available information being to facilitate the implementation of an ecosystem model “Ecopath with Ecosim”. In addition the groups involved in technical meetings will provide proposals to establish procedures relating to management measures.
Expected Outcome: At this stage, the client will initiate the process of analyzing the information in order to implement the ecosystem model and obtain some results; the stakeholders will provide some proposals in the meetings to
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 207 of 264
establish procedural linkages in management measures; the client will provide reports of the meetings that will be carried out in order to discuss the incorporation of procedural linkages. Expected score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage.
Surveillance 4 (2020) It is expected that the condition has been met in full. Expected Output: The client will present a report with the main obtained results after the implementation of the ecosystem model; also, the client will provide reports with evidence of agreements reached in all the meetings carried out to incorporate procedural linkages in the management measures. Expected Score: 80
Identify key species and the necessary biomass for the function of the ecosystem through ecosystem models, as well as the incorporation of systematic procedures and linked to measures of management and protection, which is considered a strategy to reduce impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. The client in collaboration with INAPESCA will obtain and analize timely and sufficient information including available data of the small pelagic fishery to apply a ecosystemic model “Ecopath with Ecosim”, which results will determine The client action key species and necessary biomass for the pelagic ecosystem function, allowing plan implement measures for reduce fishery potential impacts to the pelagic ecosystem.
The client in collaboration with INAPESCA and CONAPESCA (Monitoring and surveillance) will establish explicit, systematic and effective procedures to apply management and protection measures in case to find some negative potential on the ecosystem and link these procedures with the current regulations for the fishery of these resources.
The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed.
Condition 2-7
Performance 2.5.2 (Ecosystem: Management) Indicator
Score 70 Rationale See scoring issue (b) from 2.5.2
Demonstrate that partial strategy for bycatch takes into account available Condition information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the estuarine ecosystem so as to continue to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 208 of 264
Surveillance 1 (2017) Systematical samplings of non-target species by port observers will be carried out to obtain biological information. Expected Outcome: The client will present evidence that the design of the sampling strategy (port sampling and on board observers) is cohesive and feasible, and that the selected monitoring tools, goals and data analysis will provide accurate and reliable date to respond to the conditions for the management and information conditions for non-target species. Client will present reports of information obtained for non-target species. Expected Score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage. Surveillance 2 (2018) Quarterly technical meetings will be carried out in order to present the results of the monitoring conducted through a technical report and, if the evidence denotes potentially negative impacts of the fishery on pelagic ecosystem, agreements will be reached between stakeholders to implement procedures related to the current regulations which will be established to reduce the impact. At this stage, the fishery will have shown some progress toward the closure of this condition. Progress can be measured in terms of detail information on the biology of non-target organisms fishery (size, maturity, sex etc.) derived from the monitoring on board observers and port. Milestones Expected Outcome: The client will provide reports of the quarterly meetings with the information of the agreements reached to protect the ecosystem; present evidence that on board and on port observers are in place and the biological information of non-target species are collected alongside spatial information of fishing events; data from on board observer program continues to be collected for the registration of retained and discarded species and detailed information on the biology of all non-target species (size, maturity, sex, etc.) of the fishery; Information on retained species from port observers. Expected Score: No changes in score are anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 3 (2019) At this stage, the fishery will be demonstrated further progress toward the closure of the condition, consistent with the achievement of the condition within the allowed four years. Expected Outcome: Same outcome as surveillance 2. Expected Score: No anticipate changes in score at this stage. Surveillance 4 (2020) It is expected that the condition has been fully met. Expected Outcome: The client will provide a report with all evidence of the agreements reached in the meetings for the protection of the ecosystem; the client will present a report to demonstrate that a strategy is implemented to protect the pelagic ecosystem and estuarine communities. Expected Score: 80
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 209 of 264
The incorporation of procedures that are explicit and linked to the current regulations for the management and protection of the ecosystem. As well as detailed monitoring of the fishery with various actions, will provide sufficient evidence to show that the strategy to protect the pelagic ecosystem and estuarine communities is implemented successfully.
The client in collaboration with INAPESCA and CONAPESCA will make quarterly technical meetings where they will announce the results of monitoring the fishery through technical reports and, if there is evidence of potential negative The client action impacts of the fishery on the pelagic ecosystem and estuarine communities, plan agreements between the parties involved will be taken to implement procedures related to the current regulations to reduce them.
The client will cooperate with INAPESCA to carry out a strategy that results in obtaining systematic, timely and sufficient information concerning the biology (size structure, maturity, sex, weight, etc.) of non-target species of the fishery which by observers on board vessels as well as by observers port will take place. The information obtained from the organisms will be analyzed and compared with available scientific information allowing obtaining sufficient and appropriate elements to avoid any potential risk communities and estuarine pelagic ecosystem.
The client has consulted with local scientists and management agencies to Consultation on ensure that this condition is reasonable and attainable within the specified condition timeframe. Their commitment to the action plan has been confirmed.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 210 of 264
Condition 3-1
Performance 3.2.2 (Fishery specific management: Decision making processes) Indicator
Score 70
Rationale See scoring issue (a) from 3.2.2
At each annual audit, the client should provide evidence that the fishery-specific Condition management system applies an effective decision-making process that resulted in measures and strategies to reach the objectives of the fishery, including actions taken to any wrongdoing during fishing operations.
Surveillance 1 (2017) Control rule and allowable catch application starts, will be announce through technical meeting among stakeholder (The client, CONAPESCA, INAPESCA). Each month will evaluate the catch development of the fishery to control it in case to approach the limit of the biologically acceptable catch (BAC) and will announce in technical meeting among stakeholder. Each surveillance, the client will show to the audit team records of the meetings signed by participants. Expect output: The fishery complies with the BAC. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 2 (2018) See surveillance 1. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 3 (2019) Will carry out technical meetings to establish agreements Milestones among stakeholder and the review of the decision making process relative at the
fishery management that could negatively affect at the population. Necessary actions will be evaluate to mitigate the impact on fishing activity; in case to be necessary it will be implement requires actions including measures taken to any wrongdoing during fishing operations. Expect output: The client will present record of meetings and mitigation measures applied. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 4 (2020) The client will demonstrate that the fishery management system has been improved through mitigations measures to reduce the fishery impact on the ecosystem and taking actions to any wrongdoing during fishing operations. Expect output: The client will present the results of the mitigation measures applied through a technical report.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 211 of 264
Expected score: 80
The client applies an effective and systematic control rule of the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and BAC, obtained from the thread herring biomass estimate issued by INAPESCA (Client will show to the CAB the signed records of each meeting). This control rule and BAC will be announce through technical meeting among stakeholder. Moreover, it will be monitoring the landings for the The client action control rule assessment as well as BAC and it will submit the corresponding plan inspection records.
The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.
Consultation on See INAPESCA and CONAPESCA letters of support below. condition
Condition 3-2
Performance 3.2.3 (Fishery specific management: Compliance & enforcement) Indicator Score 60
Rationale See scoring issue (a) from 3.2.3
Demonstrate that the monitoring, control and surveillance system has an ability Condition to enforce relevant management measures, strategies, and/or rules.
Surveillance 1 (2017) Begins monitoring on port and on board vessels, and take agreements between stakeholder (The client, INAPESCA and CONAPESCA) about procedures for the control of minimum sizes, allowable catch and general management tools fishery. No improvement or outcome expected.
Expect output: Fishery complies with the rules approved. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Milestones Surveillance 2 (2018) Monitoring on port and on board vessels continues.
Expect output: Fishery continues complies with the rules approved. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 3 (2019) Progress can be measured in terms of fishery monitoring and control. The client will present the results of the monitoring on port and on board vessels and agreements between stakeholders (in case).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 212 of 264
Expect output: Monitoring control and surveillance system are enforced. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 4 (2020) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected score: 80
The client will collaborate with CONAPESCA and in case with INAPESCA in the necessary actions to carry out the systematic and effective monitoring, control The client action and surveillance through landing place and on board fishing vessel inspections plan to enforce management measures, strategies and rules. Records of these inspections and a final report will be submit.
Consultation on See INAPESCA and CONAPESCA letters of support below. condition
Condition 3-3
Performance 3.2.3 (Fishery specific management: Compliance & enforcement) Indicator
Score 60
Rationale See scoring issue (b) from 3.2.3
Condition Demonstrate that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.
Surveillance 1 (2017) Biological and fleet catch monitoring starts by on board and on port observers to provide systematic and timely follow at the fishery evolution in order to meet with current management measures. Expected output: Fishery complies with current regulation. Milestones Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 2 (2018) Progress can be measured in terms of analyze current regulations for the improvements implementation in monitoring, control and surveillance and where stakeholder participate (The client, CONAPESCA and INAPESCA). Through technical meeting between stakeholder to achieve agreements. Review of the decision making process starts for its implementation and improvement respect with fishery actions that could adversely affect sardine population.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 213 of 264
Expect output: Fishery complies with the rules approved. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 3 (2019) Progress can be measured in terms of the improvements implementation in monitoring, control and surveillance and where stakeholder participate (The client, CONAPESCA and INAPESCA). Assessment results and measures monitoring will report in technical meeting among stakeholder. Decision making process continues and is expect to achieve agreements among parties for the implementation and improvement respect fishery actions and that could adversely affect sardine population. Expect output: Fishery complies with the current rules. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 4 (2020) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected score: 80
The client presents inspection records as well as the infringement and punishment if any. The client action The client in collaboration with INAPESCA will continue to the biological plan monitoring and fleet catch through on board and on port observers to follow the fishery development and will collaborate with CONAPESCA to have a better monitoring, control and surveillance to detect wrongdoing cases in fishing activities. The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.
Consultation on See INAPESCA and CONAPESCA letters of support below. condition
Condition 3-4
Performance 3.2.3 (Fishery specific management: Compliance & enforcement) Indicator Score 60 Rationale See scoring issues (c) and (d) from 3.2.3
Demonstrate some evidence that fishers comply with the management system Condition and provide information of importance, and that there is no evidence of
systematic non-compliance.
Milestones
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 214 of 264
Surveillance 1 (2017) Biological and fleet catch monitoring starts by INAPESCA on board and observers on port, to give systematic and timely follow of the fishery development in order to demonstrate that fishermen meet the current management measures. Expect output: Fishers understand and complies with the management measures. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 2 (2018) Progress can be measured in terms of analyze current regulations for the improvements implementation in monitoring, control and surveillance and where stakeholder participate (The client, CONAPESCA and INAPESCA). Through technical meeting between stakeholder to achieve agreements. Review of the decision making process between stakeholder starts for the implementation and improvement, achieving to be clear and effective respect to fishery actions that could negatively affect sardine population. Expect output: Fisher complies with the rules. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 3 (2019) Progress can be measured in terms of implementation of improvements for the monitoring, control and surveillance agree between stakeholder (The client, CONAPESCA and INAPESCA). Assessment and monitoring measures results will be report in a technical meeting among stakeholder to demonstrate that fishery meet with management system and that is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. Decision making process continues and is expect achieve agreements among parties for the implementation and improvement, achieving clear and timely processes respect to the fishery actions to demonstrate that in the fishery activity is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.
Expect output: Fishery complies with the rules approved. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage.
Surveillance 4 (2020) The client will present a final report of the biological monitoring and fleet catches will be submit to the audit team. Condition expected to be fully met. Expected score: 80
The client action The client will comply the resolutions of CONAPESCA and INAPESCA as well as plan monitoring, control and surveillance, for the implementation of fishery improvements and thus comply with the management measures issued in the Norma Oficial, Carta Nacional Pesquera, Plan de Manejo, etc., mainly concerning to minimum size catch, allowable catch proportion under the size limit and BAC
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 215 of 264
to demonstrate that in the fishery is no evidence of systematic non compliance. Inspections records if any will be submit. The client will collaborate with CONAPESCA and INAPESCA for implement and improve actions in management system, in order to avoid systematic non- compliance and will submit the records of those meetings. The client in collaboration with INAPESCA will continuity to biological monitoring and fleet catches through on board and on port observers to follow the fishery development and will collaborate with CONAPESCA to get an better monitoring, control and surveillance to demonstrate that the fishery has no evidence of systematic non-compliance. A final report of the biological monitoring and fleet catches will be submit to the audit team. The condition and milestones will be assessed as outlined and addressed within the stated timeframe.
Consultation on See INAPESCA and CONAPESCA letters of support below. condition
Condition 3-5
Performance 3.2.4 (Fishery specific management: Research plan) Indicator
Score 75
Rationale See scoring issue (a) from 3.2.4
Demonstrate that a research plan provides the management system with a Condition strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to
achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2
Surveillance 1 (2017) The client will present the latest update of the Management Plan and will show evidence that there is a budget to support the necessary research to address deficiencies in the new thread herring stock assessment processes and for the Milestones analysis of the fishery impact on ecosystem.
Expect output: Research trips are made. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 2 (2018) The client will propose an update of the Management Plan including evidence of that the research cover all the small pelagic species and that exist a clear plan for approach goals and deficiencies in the new stock
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 216 of 264
assessment processes and in the analysis of the fishery impact on ecosystems of this zone. Expect output: Data of research trips are analyzed. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 3 (2019) The client will impulse agreements and necessary management for the incorporation of update information in the current Management Plan.
Expect output: Information of the research trips are used to update the management plan. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 4 (2020) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected score: 80
The client will collaborate and support INAPESCA in research the thread herring and others small pelagic in the region and in the Management Plan update (INAPESCA and CONAPESCA) to generate evidence to established research in the management tool (Management Plan) not only focus in Pacific sardine study, but in all fishes belonging at small pelagic group.
Moreover, the client in collaboration with INAPESCA and CONAPESCA will The client action demonstrate that these research are strategic, exist a clear plan in the plan Management Plan to address goals and deficiencies in the new stock assessment
processes of the thread herring in southern Gulf of California, and in the sardine fishery impact analysis on ecosystem of this region.
The client in collaboration with CONAPESCA and INAPESCA will submit evidence that exist resources to support necessary research to address the deficiencies in the new stock assessment processes of the thread herring and in the fishery impact analysis on ecosystem.
Consultation on See INAPESCA and CONAPESCA letters of support below. condition
Condition 3-6
Performance 3.2.5 (Fishery specific management: Management performance evaluation) Indicator
Score 75
Rationale See scoring issue (b) from 3.2.5
Condition Demonstrate that the fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 217 of 264
Surveillance 1 (2017) The client will collaborate with INAPESCA for the monitoring of the fishery catch in the whole season.
Expect output: At the end of the fishing season, the client will present a technical report of the fishery internal review issued by INAPESCA. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 2 (2018) See surveillance 1. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Milestones Surveillance 3 (2019) The client will collaborate with the Workshop of Technical Committee of Small Pelagic for an external review of the fishery.
Expect output: At the end of the fishing season, the client will present a technical report of the fishery external review issued by the Technical Committee of Small Pelagic. Expected score: No changes to score anticipated at this stage. Surveillance 4 (2020) Condition expected to be fully met. Expected score: 80
The client will support systematic internal review for the monitoring and analysis The client action of fishery assessment carry out by INAPESCA and it will submit the plan corresponding inspection records as well as request the external review results
that are subject.
Consultation on See INAPESCA and CONAPESCA letters of support below. condition
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 218 of 264
11. Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports
Peer Reviewer No 1
Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate No Conformity Assessment Body Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: We agree with the notion that the assessment needs to improve the Sustainable management of the thread herring and bocona fishery estimation methodology to better will require accurate assessment of the density-dependence of the understand the dynamics of the stock. stocks. Most of the density-dependence of coastal pelagics is However, the reviewer interpretation of the generally attributed to increased spawning success (per unit of estimated stock recruit relationship is biomass) at lower population densities. The assessment team has inaccurate. A linear relationship does not noted that the stock-recruit models presented to them were nearly mean “very limited productivity”, it means linear which implies that the stocks have very limited productivity. that recruitment is independent of stock size and strongly influenced by The Team has not pointed out that valid stock-recruit models environmental fluctuation. This led to the cannot be determined for stocks such as O. bulleri and O. conclusion by the investigators that the medirastre that have extremely limited variation in their observed thread herring stock went through a population size. They also have not pointed out the considerable favorable period of environmental problems discussed later for the bocona analyses; this is of conditions which combined with low particular importance because the landings of bocona exceeded exploitation rates lead to an increase in fish those of the combined thread herrings in 7 of the last 20 years. biomass. Support for this conclusion was provided with results of an analysis of the Without more extensive stock assessments the validity of the variability of a few environmental reference points and the current status of the stocks in relation to indicators. the reference points are poorly estimated. Valid MSY, Fmsy, Bmin and Fraction reference points cannot be determined until the The reviewer agrees with the scores density-dependence is known. I have not seen the stock assigned to PI 1.1.1 and 1.2.4 indicating assessments so I assume that the apparent low resolution of the basically that the stock assessment has assessments is primarily due to two factors. 1. The fishery was not ample room for improvement but with the extensive enough to merit a good sampling program until about current results interpretation of stock status 2000 or later. 2. The stock sizes of the thread herring stocks has is appropriate. The disagreement is with not been reduced significantly by either the fishery or regards of PI 1.1.2 on reference points. The environmental conditions making accurate estimation of density- reviewer developed a rationale to justify a dependence impossible. conclusion that the reference points cannot be accurately estimated and therefore the The reference points cannot be accurately estimated until the score is too high. This conclusion may or stocks are fished closer to MSY levels. Use of proxy reference points may not be correct depending on the from other species should only be used if buffers are added to elements of the provided rationale, protect against uncertainty. however, we clarify that this PI is not evaluating outcome but management. This In other words I agree with the management teams score of 65 for means that the evaluation is not the assessment of stock status (1.2.4) and 90 for stock status (1.1.1); considering whether the estimates of the but I believe that the score of 90 for reference points (1.1.2) is too reference points are reliable or not, which is high. included in the stock assessment. Instead, PI 1.1.2 is only about having reference points that are: 1) appropriate for the stock and
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 219 of 264
can be estimated; 2) that are consistent with MSY and 3) that accounts for the biomass level that could cause the recruitment to be imperiled.
A possible disagreement could be whether the reference points “can be estimated” based on the argument that lack of contrast in the data may prevent the estimation of reference points. We consider however that if acceptable estimates of absolute biomass are available, combined with reasonable assumptions about parameters controlling the stock dynamics, reference points can in fact be estimated.
Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes Conformity Assessment Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: See the specific indicators for responses to The only additions I would make to the conditions is that a genetic comments. analysis of the thread herrings would be helpful and as the fishery sampling for VPA assessments is not described; ageing of the catch or trawl samples may be a valuable addition to the conditions. The parameters of the HCR need additional analyses, either species specific values from external evaluations of VPA analyses or development of conservative proxies for Bmin and FRACTION from similar fisheries.
The principal areas which need additional work includes continuation of the acoustic surveys and emphasis on modeling to get better resolution of the stocks reference points. The conditions established by the Team are well designed to achieve these results.
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)
The information presented in the Team’s Report strongly suggests that the fishery has had little observed affect on the populations of thread herring or the principal species retained (bocona). The combined biomass of the three thread herrings shows a large increase since 1972 in the first (2012) stock assessment; the second stock assessment (2015) shows almost no variation in the stock size of two of the thread herrings and moderate variation in the third. This analysis also shows that the bocona population has had an order of magnitude increase since 1972. The differences in the results for the thread herring stocks suggest that there is considerable uncertainty in the historical biomass assessments.
The 2015 analysis shows that two of the thread herrings have remained very close to the estimates of unfished biomass from 1972 to the present; the third has moderate variability, no trend and few years
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 220 of 264
having biomass below 80% of the unfished biomass. If this analysis is taken as the prime assessment the obvious conclusion is that the fishery has never been large enough to influence the population sizes. In addition, it implies that density-dependent processes cannot be estimated due to the very small range of densities observed in the analysis. Therefore stock-recruitment relationships cannot be determined from the analysis and Reference Points cannot be validly estimated.
The management appears to be headed towards using a Control Rule to manage the fishery. The lack of valid estimates of Bmin and Fmsy and FRACTION caused by the small range in observed biomass variations suggest that if this type of management is used proxy values for the Control Rule will have to be used. Presently fishing mortality appears to be primarily limited by the size of the fishing fleet, which given the size of the fleet appears to be a valid and conservative management strategy for the next few years.
The catch history shows slowly increasing landings that are visually, closely correlated with increasing effort. The only major outlier is the significant reduction in the landings of O. libertate in the last three years (2012-14). This is the only signal in the entire report that implies that the fishery may be influencing the biomass of any of the stocks.
As will be seen in my review I do have problems with the analyses and management for the bocona stock; which is considered to be a main retained species. I would prefer to have this stock in the actively managed category. I also spend a considerable amount of time dealing with density dependence and its potential affects on the reference points. These considerations may result in scoring problems associated with passing certification; this is unfortunate because it appears that these scoring problems are at least partially caused by the apparent low exploitation rates and the fact that there is little observed variation in stock biomasses and no years with thread herring biomass levels below about 70% of the estimated unfished levels. It appears that the MSC Certification methodology is designed for fisheries with higher historical fishing mortality than that observed in the Mexican Pacific thread herring fishery.
Given the information presented in the report I feel that the fishery should be certified and that the recommended conditions, and five more years of data, will result in improvements to the management of the fishery.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 221 of 264
PI Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers Response information and/or raised by referring to specific scoring issues and any available rationale used improve the relevant documentation been used to score this fishery’s where possible. Please to score this Indicator performance attach additional pages if Indicator? support the to the SG80 necessary. (Yes/No) given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Stock Status: The assessment No response is necessary because report states “This neither the reviewer comment or a assessment was conducted potential reply has an impact in the under the assumptions that score already assigned. O. libertate is the only functional species subject to However, we clarify that the the fishery and that statement about O. libertate as the exploitation takes place on a only functional species in the UoA single stock or population was a leftover from an early version unit.” The report describes that has been corrected to reflect the 3 thread herrings as the assumption of a stock complex subspecies in some parts of with three species of the genus the report and as 3 species Opistonema. in other parts. Stock structure is an area which Other concerns in this section have clearly needs further work. been addressed in the proper PI and other parts of the comment The two stock assesments (e.g. comparing with FAO data) are (Figs. 7 and 8) have not applicable to this fishery as completely different trends explained below. and mean biomass for the total biomass of thread herrings. Mean thread herring biomass with the 2012 study is less than 0.25 MMT (Figure 7); whereas, the 2015 assessment has the combined thread herring mean Bo > 1.38 MMT (K in Table 4).
The combined thread herring values (Figure 7), gives a very stable biomass of less than 0.1 MMT prior to about 1984, biomass then rises to a peak about 0.3 MMT in 84- 85 and then to a recent peak of about 0.6 MMT.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 222 of 264
Figure 8 and Table 4, which includes the separate time series for the three thread herring species and the anchovy, are quite different). None of the thread herrings show any trend and O. medirastre has essentally no population variablitly (0.526- 0.533 MMT) and O. bulleri has essentially no variabilty prior to 2005 and after 2005 it varies only modestly (0.32- 0.36). The O. libertate biomass falls below 0.4 MMT in only 3 years of the time series.
The authors point out several serious limitations with the 2015 stock assessment and the limitations of the ‘assumptions” made for life history factors could be very important.
The two acoustic biomass assessments are between the two stock assessment values; average biomass with the two surveys was about 0.76 MMT.
The differnces in reported landings in the report vs those in the FAO Statistics causes considerable questions regarding the quality of the basic landings data. This could result in a potential large bias in the historical and the curent biomass estimates. The combined landings of the three thread herring stocks (Table 2) are far below the reported landings of Opisthonema libertate in the FAO Yearbooks. Thread herring landings in 2007 were 76,218 mt and total
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 223 of 264
landings, which apparently includes bocona, were 81,224 mt (Table 2): however, the FA0 landings in 2007 were 215,329 mt of Pacific thread herring and 27,407 mt of bacona (i.e. Pacific anchovetta: FAO 2009 Yearbook).
The methodology used in the stock assessments and potential bias are poorly described and the life history section (3.3.3) is very abreviated and it does not include the age at maturity, information on age and growth, growth models, or spawner-recruit relationships. Natural mortality rates are estimated from published maximum age estimates that imply a precision that is simply impossible (i.e. maximum age of 8.94 for O. liberate). The alteration to a maximum age of 7 (M=0.6) is reasonable but there is no evidence presented that the maximum age is actually 7. The natural mortality rate used in the two population assessments is not given.
The fishery and fishery independent population assessments have very different estimates for current biomass. However, none of the estimates suggests that the stocks are not greatly below the unfished level. Therefore, in spite of the fact that there is considerable uncertainty in the estimates of unfished biomass, I agree with the Team in their assessment that there is no evidence that the stock is below the
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 224 of 264
MSY level and there score of 90 for this indicator is warranted.
1.1.2 Yes No NA Reference Points: The life This has been addressed in the history section (3.3.3) is very general section above. abreviated and it does not include age at maturity, information on age and growth, growth models, or spawner-recruit relationships. Natural mortality rates are estimated from published maximum age estimates that imply a precision (4 days) that is simply impossible (i.e. maximum age of 8.94 for O. liberate). The authors alteration to a maximum age of 7 (M=0.6) is reasonable but there is no evidence presented that the maximum age is actually 7. The natural mortality rate used in the two population assessments is not given nor are any of the other population dynamics rates. The methodology used in the stock assessments and potential bias are not well described and the Team score the for the assessment of the stocks is 65 (1.2.4). The authors note that rhe fitted stock recruitment models in the 2012 analysis were close to linear (page 21). This implies that reproductive success has almost no density- dependence and that sustainable yield (Fmsy) will be very small (probably < 0.05).
Accurate reference points cannot be determined with weak models.
The significant limitations of
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 225 of 264
the population analyses suggests that the 90 score for this indicator simply cannot be justified.
1.1.3 NA NA NA There is no evidicence that NA the stock(s) are depleted; therefore the certifier did not score this indicator.
1.2.1 Yes Yes No Harvest Strategy: The There are some elements of this control rule C=(B-Bmin) * rationale that the team agrees FRACTION (page 27) is with. However, PI 1.2.1 does not becoming the standard for pertain to details of the structure of management of coastal the HCR, which are covered in PI pelagic species. 1.2.2 Under this PI conditions have been put in place to address the The Full-Assessment Report concerns raised by the peer notes that the Management reviewer in regards to the values plan does not have Bmin or for Bmin, FRACTION and fishing FRACTION values for the mortality. Another reason why this individual species or the PI obtained a score of 70 is because combined thread stocks. the fishery didn’t demonstrate that Note that FRACTION is not the strategy is responsive to the equal to exploitation rate (E) state of the stock and the target or fishing mortality (F) reference point should be explicitly although Emsy can be used defined. Pertinent conditions were as an estimate of FRACTION. assigned I assume that the default exploitation rate (E=0.25) from the Gulf of California sardine fishery would be used but this is not stated and the use of a proxy estimate from another species should have a conservative buffer.
Fmsy for the O. bulleri and O. medirastre from the 2015 assessment is extremely high (i.e. F > 0.8: Table 4). A Fraction > 80% certainly should not be used for any coastal pelagic species.
The score of 70 for this indicator is well justified: however, there are no conditions listed for this indicator .
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 226 of 264
1.2.2 Yes Yes No Harvest Control Rules and The team considers that estimates Tools: The Team noted that of Fmsy and Bmin can certainly be present stock recruitment obtained using external simulation models are nearly linear. models, but we do not agree that Estimates of Fmsy and Bmin they produce “the best” estimates are best estimated by of these parameters. Under some simulation models external circumstances it can be true, but to the stock assessments but not necessarily. The team cannot based on estimates of advocate the use of any particular spawning stock size and approach when more than one are recruitment derived from viable. stock assessments. The team considers that the Clearly spawner-recruit reviewer may be missing the models cannot be validly biomass trend in Figure 7 which estimated with the limited was produced with an age variability of biomass structured model wich also observed in the O. produced the stock-recruitment medirastre and O. bulleri relationship referred in the report. stock assessments (Figures 8 and 9). This limitation Estimates of Fmsy and MSY in the severely impacts the stock assessment were produced biomass time series, the using a biomass production model, current biomass estimates not an age structured model and and particulary the estimates therefore, no stock-recruitment is of used to obtain these parameters. MSY and Fmsy in Table 4. MSY and Fmsy are both PI 1.2.2 scored under 80 because dependent upon estimation the elements in the control rule of the density-dependence need to be revised and pertinent of a stock. Note that with conditions were assigned. O. bulleri the choice of a Ricker model vs. a Beverton and Holt model would result in widely varying estimates of Fmsy with the same data set.
The Team has noted that FRACTION has to be established for the thread herring stocks; however, there are no estimates of Bmin for any of the stocks or the combined stock. The need for proxy or species specific values for Bmin and FRACTION need to be added to the conditions section.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 227 of 264
1.2.3 ? ? No Information and Monitoring: This PI requires to identify the Very little information on the range of data on: fishery sampling is presented a. Stock structure. by the Team. There is no b. Stock productivity. description of the present c. Fleet composition. fishery sampling method nor d. Stock abundance. any indication of the e. Fishery removals. variation in sampling f. Other data. methods or effort over the 1972-2015 period. The PI also requires that stock abundance and removals by the There is entirely no mention UoA are monitored and that there of any ageing work and, as is good information on other pointed out above, the FAO removals not associated to the and local landing statistics UoA. are very different. The quality of the information and I am unable to determine if monitoring is judged based on its this information was ability to inform and support the presented to the Team or if harvest control rule and general it does not exist. I am harvest strategy. therefore unable to determine if all of the The team conclusion was that there information available has is sufficient information to support been used to score the the harvest strategy and that stock indicator or if the Team’s abundance and fishery removals rational supports the given are monitored and at least one score. indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to Given the scarcity of support the harvest control rule. informtion I defer to the score of 75 made by the These conclusions are basically in team. As there are no agreement with the need of furhter conditions it is unclear if the information to constitute a performance will raise to 80. comprehensive range and that monitoring needs to happen regularly.
As for the catch records, official stock assessments are conducted using official catch statistics. If there is a disagreement with other sources of data, we may require that details are provided on the alternative source to determine the range of discrepancy. FAO yearbook data are usually aggregated and we are unaware of data that is specific for the fishery of Opistonema spp and Bocona in the southern portion of the Gulf of
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 228 of 264
California. The source of data cited by the reviewer refers to the total landings of TH in Mexico and the series start in 2005. For the southern GoC catch records extend back to the 70s
1.2.4 Yes Yes Yes Assessment of stock status: No comment or response needed. The two stock assessments and the acoustic survey estimates of biomasss have very different values and trends.
Average thread herring biomass in the 2012 analysis was about 0.2 MMT and the combined average biomass of the three stocks in the 2015 analysis was about 1.3 MMT.
The combined thread herring population estimates from the 2012 analysis (Figure 7), gives a very stable biomass of less than 0.1 MMT prior to about 1984, biomass then rises to a peak about 0.3 MMT in 84-85 and then to a recent peak of about 0.6 MMT.
The 2015 analysis shows that none of the thread herrings have any trend (Figure 8), O. medirastre has essentally no population variablitly (0.526- 0.533 MMT) and O. bulleri has essentially no variabilty prior to 2005 and after 2005 it varies only slightly (0.32- 0.36). The O. libertate biomass falls below 0.4 MMT in only 3 years of the time series.
The acoustic biomass assessments are between the two stock assessment values; average biomass with
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 229 of 264
the two surveys was about 0.76 MMT.
The wide differences in biomass estimates from the three analyses suggest that there is a large amount of uncertainty in the unfished and current biomass of the three thead herrings. However, there is no evidence that any of the three are currently greatly below the average unfished biomass.
I therefore agree with the low score of 65 for this indicator but note that this low score does not imply that the 90 score for element 1.1.1 is too high.
2.1.1 No No No The Pacific anchovetta (FAO The team acknowledges that Statistics) Cetengraulis Bocona sardine may ocassionally be mysticetus locally known as a targeted species, however, bocona, has in some years following the MSC definitons for provided more than half of classification of Principle 2 species, the landings in this fishery. this species has been classified as ‘main retained’. There is no information concerning the schooling The datum about bocona discard is behavior of the species in misinterpreted from the the fishery. If a significant information provided by INAPESCA. proportion of the captured Section 3.4.4 in the background on bocona were in schools that bycatch indicates that “very little” are primarily bocona then is discarded, with over 95% of the bocona should not be catch landed. Part of the discards is considered a main species. composed by undersized O. Fishing on libertate and C. mysticetus, but the nearly pure schools of report indicates that only half of bocona implies that bocona the undersize fish of these species is a targeted species. is discarded, in practice therefore, the discards of these species can be Apparently about 50% of the considered negligible. bocona catch is discarded and there is no information An explanation has already been on the survival rate of the provided in sections above about discarded bacona; therefore why FAO data as presented in it is very difficult to estimate yearbooks are not comparable to the biomass removed by the data in this fishery.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 230 of 264
fishery. “Actively managed species” is not Landings data for bocona an MSC definition that could be have the same problem as used to assign a species as target or for Pacific thread herring. retained, it is a classification in the The 2007 FAO reported Mexican Small Pelagics catch of C. mysticetus was Management Plan. We do agree 27,407 MT. Whereas the however that bocona should be assessment report gives a classified as actively managed in bocona catch of only 5,006 the Management Plan MT ( i.e. Table 2: total catch minus thread herring (i.e. Certainly, the stock assessments 81,224 – 76,218 Table 2). have not been peer reviewed and This is a maximum catch of that is one of the reasons why PI bocona as it assumes that all 1.2.4 scored 65. The bocona of the difference between assessment was part of the total landings and thread multispecies production model herring landings is bocona. analysis, therefore no stock- recruitment relationship was Given the importance of produced. bocona in the landings it may have been preferable to Concerns about the catch include it as a fourth actively exceeding MSY as well as managed species in the Unit observations about trends in of Assessment rather than biomass are not relevant for this PI considering it a main because it only requires at SG60 or retained species. 80 that the stock is within “biologically based limits”, The 2015 stock assessment meaning, above the point where of bocona does not appear recruitment could be imperilled. At to have been peer reviewed the SG100 level, the requirement and the stock-recruitment also adds that the stock is relationship is not described fluctuating around its target in the present report reference point. This allows for years where the stock is under the The “robust life history target or the catch exceeds MSY. traits” of bacona appear to be primarily based on it’s Figure 9D shows that most of the taxonomy rather than the bocona biomass has been above stock assessments. Note the level producing MSY. that the Fmsy estimate is far below that of the 3 thread Low catch of bocona in survey herring stocks (Table 4) and trawls may be the result of a bocona was the only species sampling design focused more on in the 2015 assessment that thread herring than on other has had very low biomass in species. the 1907-2015 period. This implies that the bacona The other main species (spotted stock is far less robust than eagle ray and devil ray) are also the thread herring stocks. scored at SG 80 on scoring issue (a). The overall score for performance
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 231 of 264
Bocona is the only stock for indicator 2.1.1 is 80 because all 80 which the landings have and 60 issues are met. exceeded the MSY estimate (in 2011) and the average landings of bacona exceed those of two of the thread herring stocks.
The team stated that they had “received evidence that the estimated biomass has been historically above the level producing MSY”. Unfortunately I was unable to find this information.
The only estimate of the biomass of bocona (i.e.the 2015 VPA time series: Table 2D) shows that the biomass of bocona is extremely variable going from less than 50,000 mt in 1972, when there was no significant fishery, to about 680,000 mt in 2011. The obviouls implication is that this stock is very highly environmental dependent and much more susceptable to overfishing than the more stable thread herring stocks.
The Kobe plots for bocona (Figure 9) mentions that bocona includes years when biomass was under Bmsy even when F was well below Fmsy and it was possible that K had changed. If K is variable or alternates between steady states it is clear that average Bmsy and average Fmsy are very poor estimates which should not be used for management unless there is a significant buffer.
The acoustic surveys show that bocona was a very
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 232 of 264
minor component in the trawl samples. Therefore the fishery independent surveys suggest that, at least in some years, the bocona stock is very small whereas the VPA assessment gives a biomass of 366,481 MT. The authors state that the SG 60 is met for bocona and for the reasons stated above I agree with this low rating.
The other species in this section, spotted eagle ray and devil ray, are also scored at SG 60 (Page 100). How can the overall performance indicator score be 80 if each of the two elements are scored at 60?
2.1.2 Yes Yes No Management: It is unclear if Since bocona was considered to be the biologically based limits within biologically based limits, no are valid for bocona and specific management is expected biomass estimates from the (see the “if necessary” condition in VPA suggest that the the requirement of PI 2.1.2 SIa). population varies widely due Nevertheless, small pelagics are to environmental factors. under the regulatory reach of the small pelagics management plan, Given that bocona is the only and although bocona is a species main species which has a under passive management, the large retained catch I suggest approach is considered enough to that a conservative estimate keep the stock within biologically of maximum catch (i.e. a based limits. highly buffered proportion of There can be no conditions the MSY estimate) be associated to this PI, but we can established and that efforts certainly add a recommendation to should be made to improve improve the situation with bocona the present knowledge of by shifting it to active management the population dynamics of which can be inserted in 2.1.1 this stock.
I agree with the Teams score, however the Team did not include any conditions regarding the significant bocona fishery so it appears that the conditions will not raise the performace from 75 to 80.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 233 of 264
I recommend that the bocona stock be considered an actively managed species in the next MSC evaluation.
I also suggest that a conservative estimate of maximum catch (i.e. 25% of MSY) be established and that efforts should be made to improve the present knowledge of the population dynamics of this stock.
The Team’s has no conditions for 2.1.2
2.1.3 Yes Yes No Information: There is no As mentioned in the response to evaluation of the fact that comment in 2.1.1, the datum about about 50% of the bocona bocona discard is misinterpreted catch is discarded and the from the information provided by survival rate of the discards INAPESCA. Section 3.4.4 in the is not known. The landings background on bycatch indicates data may not accurately that “very little” is discarded, with describe the total mortality over 95% of the catch landed. Part due to the fishery. This of the discards is composed by omission when coupled with undersized O. libertate and C. the apparent low resolution mysticetus, but the report indicates of the biomass estimates that only half of the undersize fish and the apparent high of these species is discarded, in environmental dependence practice therefore, the discards of suggests that the bocona these species can be considered stock has a higher negligible. probability of being impacted by the fishery than the actively managed species. These factors and the fact that in some years the bocona landings may be larger than the combined thread herring landings suggests that the score on this indicator should be less than 80, and I agree with the Team’s score of 75.
The Team’s has no conditions for 2.1.2
2.2.1 Yes Yes NA I concur with the score of 80. Based on the peer reviwer’s justification no CAB response is
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 234 of 264
deemeded necesssary.
2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Given that the recommented Based on the peer reviwer’s mitigation measures are justification no CAB response is installed, I concur. deemeded necesssary.
2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Lack of information on the Based on the peer reviwer’s survival rate of discarded justification no CAB response is cownose rays and the deemeded necesssary. relatively low observer coverage (6%) Given that SG 80 is not met for 2.2.3.c I concur.
2.3.1 Yes Yes NA I agree that the very low Based on the peer reviwer’s bycatch rate in this purse- justification no CAB response is seine fishery should result in deemeded necesssary. a score of 100.
2.3.2 Yes Yes NA The capture of ETP species Based on the peer reviwer’s appears to be minor and justification no CAB response is fishermen education is the deemeded necesssary. primary mitigation measure for ETP bycatch or mortality. However, the lack of analyses does prevent a score of 100 for any of the elements of this indicator.
2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the relatively Based on the peer reviwer’s low scoring for issue a. I justification no CAB response is also agree with the concept deemeded necesssary. that interactions between ETP species and this fishery are quite low and that the fishery is not likely tt be a threat to ETP species.
2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Conseratively managed Based on the peer reviwer’s purse-seine fisheries for justification no CAB response is coastal pelagics generally deemeded necesssary. have little effect on either pelagic or benthic commuinities. This fishery does set in quite shallow water; however, the total “swept’ area is a very minor poroportion of the total habitat, the take of benthic organisms is quite limited and the mechanical effect on
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 235 of 264
the nearshore structure is minor and undoubted less than that caused by storms.
2.4.2 Yes Yes NA I concur. Based on the peer reviwer’s justification no CAB response is deemeded necesssary.
2.4.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the reasoning in Information provided under 2.4.3; essentially there little “Section 3.4.6 Habitat”on the reason to expect a significant fishing operations (See Figure 16) impact; however, there is no considers both hard substrates information on the (rock) and soft substrates ( sand, proportion sets that occur silt-sand, silt-clay), but the spatial on hard bottom where distribution of the fleet indicate impacts would be expected that the fishing actities ocurr on to be the greatest. soft bottoms.
2.5.1 Yes Yes NA As mentioned previously I = Comments regarding the stock have concerns about the assessment methods are addressed VPA analyses and in under Principle 1, while particular the reference requirements for advances in points for O. bulleri and O. ecosystem research to better medirastre. The combined understand the impacts of the unfished biomass of the fishery are addressed in the Client thead herrings and bocona Action plan corresponding to PI may be over 1.5 MMT and 2.5.2 these stocks have quite high natural mortality. Obviously something is preying on these stocks. The fact that the few species with well documented food habits do not consume large quantities of thread herring or bocona is interesting but not comprehensive.
It appears that fishing at the MSY level, which usually occurs at a biomass less than half of the unfishished level, would have negative impacts on some species. Until the biomass is reduced to the MSY level it is very diffiicult to assess the question of serious or irreversible ecosystem harm.
I agree that the present fishery rates a score of 80;
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 236 of 264
however, it remains to be seen if this will be true if/when the fishery approaches the combined MSY of 0.55 MMT (Table 4).
2.5.2 Yes Yes Yes It needs to be insured that The Client Action Plan for the additional effort is placed on condition in this PI focus on the VPA stock assessments, improvements to current ecoystem hydroacoustic survey models. methods and stock assessments. Additional ecosystem modeling should also be undertaken although ecosystem models need to be focused on individual fisheries, with high resolution on the exploited species before they can be used for management.
It is too early to assess optimum yield as neither the stock assessments of the 4 species or current ecosystem models for this fishery are of high enough qualtity to produce valid results.
I concur with the score of 70.
2.5.3 Yes Yes NA The principal problem with Based on the peer reviwer’s the information is that the justification no CAB response is time series of high quality deemeded necesssary. data are too short and the range in spawning stock biomass is to small to compute accurate stock assessments or ecosystem analyses. If the recommendations in this report are followed this problem is highly likely to disappear.
Therefore, I concur with the score of 80
3.1.1 Yes Yes NA My background on this Based on the peer reviwer’s indicator is limited. Given justification no CAB response is
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 237 of 264
this I agree with the material deemeded necesssary. in this indicator.
3.1.2 Yes Yes NA I do not know the individuals Based on the peer reviwer’s responsible for management justification no CAB response is so I have not assessed this deemeded necesssary. indicator
3.1.3 Yes Yes NA The authors note that the Based on the peer reviwer’s generic assumption that justification no CAB response is small pelagics have MSY at deemeded necesssary. an exploitation rate of 25% based on the Gulf of California Pacific sardine analysis. Emsy for the thread herrings and bocona have not been determined. Fmsy values for O. bulleri and O. medirastre cannot be calculated due to the very limited range of biomass observed in these stocks.
I agree with the Team.
3.1.4 Yes Yes NA My background on this Based on the peer reviwer’s indicator is limited. Given justification no CAB response is this I agree with the material deemeded necesssary. in this indicator.
3.2.1 Yes Yes NA I concur with the score of 80. Based on the peer reviwer’s Timeframes for the justification no CAB response is establishment of deemeded necesssary. improvements in the fishery sampling, stock assessments and additional research necessary to achieve an explotation rate that is comfortably less than MSY (i.e OY) are not described.
3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes I do not have the local Based on the peer reviwer’s knowledge necessary to justification no CAB response is evaluate this indicator. deemeded necesssary.
3.2.3 Yes Yes Yes I do not have the local Based on the peer reviwer’s knowledge necessary to justification no CAB response is evaluate this indicator. deemeded necesssary.
3.2.4 NA NA NA The research plan was not The Research Plan of the small provided to the team. pelagic fisheries is included in the Therefore I will not make any SPFMP as a Research Program,
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 238 of 264
comments on this indicator. implying a strong relationship between research and management planning. The program takes into consideration that small pelagic species populations have large changes in their abundance related with the environment and the rate of exploitation. The program suggests that the research must focus into develop adaptive reference points for their management.
3.2.5 Yes Yes Yes This element is somewhat The team is expecting an external circular. The fact that the review of the fishery-specific fishery has submitted for manatagement system besides the MSC Full-Assessment internal review at INAPESCA. The ensures that an fishery has the necessary resources improvement in to carried out this review. Management Performance will be necessary to meet the requirements of the re- evaluation. Based on my experience this will primarily depend on funding and the individuals carrying out the research and management of this fishery. I have no local knowledge of either the individuals or local funding so I am unable to provide any evaluation of this indicator. However, I note that the teams score of 75 suggests that they are hopefull.
Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response
The report appears to have been written in pieces by the different authors. For example, in the beginning of the Executive Summary it is Incongruences in common name for stated that the complex is composed of three thread herring species. Cetengraulis mysticetus and the use of In section 3.1 and table 1 it is stated that the complex is composed of “species” vs “sub-species” have been corrected three sub-species. By section 3.3.1 the complex is back to three in the report. species. Section 3.3.2 states that the fishery operates under the assumption that the group is made up of three different species. Given the apparent taxonomic difficulties with such similar fishes a Details of the model structure used in stock DNA genetics study of the three Pacific thread herrings should be assessments are usually not included in the carried out with the Atlantic thread herring included in the analysis for MSC evaluation report. It is customary however
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 239 of 264
comparative purposes. If the taxonomic differences between the to present the relevant elements of the stock three Pacific thread herrings are less than the species level this would assessments and references are inserted. The simplify matters considerably. stock assessment by Jacob-Cervantes 2012 which used VPA, utilized an age-length key that The English common name in the Executive Summary is bigmouth was produced after an ageing program and sardine. The common name used in Mexico appears to be bocano reported by Jacob-Cervantes et al 2005 and sardine, or more likely sardina bocano sardine, or simply bocano. referred in the Jacob-Cervantes 2012 report. Nowhere in the text is it mentioned that this species is an anchovy. The internationally (FAO) accepted English common name (Pacific In Section 6.6. Traceability within the Fishery anchovetta) should be mentioned in the beginning of the paper. The indicates that in order to be eligible for MSC author should then decide which Mexican common name they want to CoC certification thread herring products shall use and then use this name throughout the rest of the report (i.e. be segregated. The section recommends that if bocona). segregation of species is too complex, other species, such as bocona sardine be evaluated It is unclear from the Assessment Report if the growth rates of the under P1. thread herrings and bocona have been established and there is no mention of any ageing program that could be used to establish age and growth models needed for VPA analyses. The age composition of the catch was not presented for any of the active species or bocona. Age composition is an extremely important component of VPA analyses. If lengths are going to be the standard sampling method a validated age/length key needs to be developed.
Traceability. The thread herring fishery in some years has a significant percentage of the landed catch that is not thread herring. Bocona is the dominant main species in the catch and in 7 years out of the last 20 the bocona catch was larger than the thread herring catch (Figure 12). This may prove to be a difficulty if NGOs carry out genetic analysis of fish meal or oil that is sold as thread herring but is found to be anchovy. It might be desirable to recommend that bocona be added as a target species rather than a main species in the next assessment report.
Peer Reviewer No 2
PI Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers Response information and/or raised by referring to specific scoring issues and any available rationale improve the relevant documentation been used used to score fishery’s where possible. Please to score this this Indicator performance attach additional pages if Indicator? support the to the SG80 necessary. (Yes/No) given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)
1.1.1 Yes No NA The certifier gave a score of The score reaches 90 because it 90 for this PI based on the depends on whether there is a
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 240 of 264
most recent stock high degree of certainty that the assessment studies that stock is above the point where consider the stock far below recruitment would be imperiled. FMSY; however, the The requirement to increase the Condition Number 1-8 assessment reliability associates recommends increasing to estimating stock status assessment reliability. relative to Bmsy. For this Therefore the score could be reason, Scoring Issue b does not lower than 90 meet SG100.
1.1.2 No No Yes The literature mentions that Please see background section Clupeidae fish species have a of Principle One, subsection key role in the marine 3.3.1 on Low Trophic Level ecosystem. The SPFMP Species for details about the (Section 3.3 ) mentions that conclusion that the TH in the these species are forrage for southern Gulf of California does higher trophic levels, not qualify as key LTL species including other fish, marine mammals and seabirds. The certification document mentions in Ecological models section (page49) the importance of the species in the ecosystem. The score given by the evaluation team should be a little less than 90
1.1.3 NA NA NA The stock is not depleted NA
1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes The score given by the Agreed certifier team is adequate
1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes The score given by the Agreed evaluation team is correct (70), and it is very important to make clear that the fishery must establish and implement effective HCR (Condition 1-3)
1.2.3 Yes No Yes I consider that the score Because abundance is a critical given by the certifying team element required to support the is low ( 75 ), and could be 80. harvest strategy, current The certification should estimates of abundance, include in the Condition 1-7 although highly informative, the importance of don’t have yet the level of strengthening and expanding accuracy and coverage the incipient onboard consistent with the harvest observer program, improve control rule. This is particularly data quality and incorporate true considering that the fishery them into a comprehensive operates on a stock complex.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 241 of 264
system of information. The score therefore is considered a fair evaluation of this PI.
1.2.4 Yes No Yes Given INPESCA efforts to We agree that efforts to develop the stock conduct stock assessments of assessment, inconsistencies this fishery under alternative between the two models approaches are commendable should not be an argument and maybe, under a different to penalize the scoring issue. evaluation system a 70 would These efforts are a be a fair score. Unfortunately, breakthrough and Condition the in the MSC system, PI 1.2.4 1-7 should highlight the at SG80 can only be 65, 70 or importance of continuing 80. Because the stock periodic assessments, and assessments have not been peer improving the models. The reviewed yet, the only possible score given by the scores are 65 and 70. To score a certification team is low ( 65 70 the requirements of two ), maybe 70 is better. Scoring Issues must be met: a) the assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule; and b) the assessment takes uncertainty into account. We accepted the requirement of SI a) but we considered that critical uncertainties in assumptions and model performance have not been accounted for yet. The only possible score then is 65 and although it appears low, we don’t see this as a way to penalize the fishery or the stock assessment. We see this type of outcome in the evaluation of a fishery as a strong incentive to advance towards better research and management.
2.1.1 Yes Yes No The score given by the Mobula japanica rays were assessment team is correct categorized as main retained, (80). However, it is necessary however, a condition was not to incorporate a new placed for M. japanica because Condition to implement the volume is extremely low, effective actions to reduce however, the Mitigation and eventually eliminate Measures Protocol for release (release alive) non-target of rays covers all ray species, species as Mobula japanica, including M. japanica particularly because it is classified as near-threatened species by IUCN. Perhaps the Mitigation Measures
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 242 of 264
Protocol developed by the client should be validated by a third party and included in the Condition. The Condition must clarify that the rays should be considered as by.catch and not retained species. Therefore, only bocona sardine should be a retained species.
2.1.2 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agreed by the assessment team (75)
2.1.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agreed by the assessment team (75)
2.2.1 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agreed by the assessment team (80)
2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agreed by the assessment team (75)
2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agreed by the assessment team (75)
2.3.1 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agreed by the assessment team (100)
2.3.2 Yes Yes No I agree with the score given Condition 2-5 for PI 2.3.3 by the assessment team requests information to (85). However, the estimate the impact of the evaluation team should fishery on ETP species, this also include a Condition serves to validate the successul requesting the validation of implementaion of the the Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Protocol Protocol, and that this included procedures for handling: 1 ) ETP, 2 ) By catch and 3 ) retained species..
2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agree by the assessment team (75)
2.4.1 Yes No Yes The evaluation team gave a The team scored at SG100 on score of 100, which is not account of the of the scale and consistent with the intensity of this fishery. justification and guidepost score grade (80, see table). Perhaps there is evidence
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 243 of 264
that it is unlikely that the fishery will reduce the habitat and its functions, but this is not definite since the evidence shows that there is some degree of interaction between fishing gear and benthic communities. I believe that the score should be 90.
2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Based on the peer reviwer’s by the assessment team (80) justification no CAB response is deemeded necesssary.
2.4.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Based on the peer reviwer’s by the assessment team (80) justification no CAB response is deemeded necesssary.
Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Based on the peer reviwer’s by the assessment team justification no CAB response is (70). deemeded necesssary.
2.5.1 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Based on the peer reviwer’s by the assessment team (80) justification no CAB response is deemeded necesssary.
2.5.2 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given The corresponding client action by the assessment team plan for condition 2-7( PI 2.5.2) (70). However, a addresses implementation of recommendation for this measures for protection of Scoring Issue could be to estuarine ecosystems by the include in the Condition 2-7 fourth surveillance. the Mitigation Measures Protocol as part of the measures to reduce the risk of harm to ecosystem, and request reduction of the percentage (e.g. less than 14%) of vessels’ operations and sets in depths between 0 and 5 fathoms.
2.5.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Based on the peer reviwer’s by the assessment team (80) justification no CAB response is deemeded necesssary.
3.1.1 No No Yes I disagree with the score The PI 3.1.1 was rescored as 90 given by the evaluation team taking considerations on this (85). The justification issued review. by the evaluation team for the Guidepost 3.1.1 d
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 244 of 264
mentions that there is no evidence that the legal system has been tested. However, there are several legal disputes related to fisheries or environmental violations in court. The system is tested when a legal dispute is brought before a corresponding instance, and its effectiveness depends on the criteria and knowledge of those who give the final verdict on the crime. From that perspective, the system has been tested. CONAPESCA and the Federal Attorney have many of these cases. Even illegal fishing of some species such as lobster, abalone and sea cucumber is defined in the Penal Code as a felony (Art. 420-II bis). Moreover, scoring issue 3.2.2 mentions that a vessel was fined for fishing in a prohibited area. Given that all Guideposts of the scoring issue 3.1.1 got 100, the total score should be at least 90.
3.1.2 No No No I disagree with the score The score was rescored given by the evaluation team following Reviewer 2 (90). The score of the commnets, but as 85 in Guidepost 3.1.2 b does not harmonizing the score with meet SG 80 because the other fisheries (Table 11). consultation process in Condition for the PI 3.2.2 covers Sinaloa (CEPA) does not the issues raised by Reviewer 2. sessions regularly. There is not clarity in the procedures for consultation neither in the legitime representativeness of all parties. The CNPA and CEPA address topics very general and not specific for the sardine fishery. Unlike other management plans most recently published, which specify the procedures for
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 245 of 264
participation and consultation, the SPFMP not mention the committee to implement the plan and its rules of operation. Therefore, it does not meet the SG 90. The arguments presented by the evaluation team regarding the consultation process are for a national level, but they do not correspond to a local level, where the sardine fishery is carried out. The SG should be 80. A condition that mentions the way of legitimizing the committee to implement the plan and its operating rules should be requested.
3.1.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agreed by the assessment team (100). The SG of Guidepost 3.1.3 a should be corrected (SG100)
3.1.4 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agreed by the assessment team (80); however, it is important to add a specific Condition that establishes the criteria to provide incentives consistent to sustainable fisheries principles, and transparent procedures for the transfers.
3.2.1 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agreed by the assessment team (80); however, it might be appropriate to add a condition indicating the importance of updating the plan with short and long term objectives clearly defined.
3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agreed by the assessment team (70). Condition 3-1 should request the development of
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 246 of 264
performance indicators, and monitoring and evaluation of the SPFMP with the principles of co- management.
3.2.3 Yes No Yes I disagree with the score For scoring this PI 3.2.3 not only given by the evaluation team the undersize percentage was (60). There is no legal considered, but also the maximum percentage of retention of prohibited species undersized catches. The without any evidence of SPFMP recommends the sanctions. The score was enactment of a 30% as the maintened as 60. maximum undersized fish in the catches (it is not binding); however, the NOM-003-PESCA-1993 mentions only the legal minimum size for the species, but it does not specify the percentages or the mechanisms to control the minimum size. The overall performance score should be 70. Condition 3-2 should include the enactment of the maximum allowable percentage of undersized fish in the catch.
3.2.4 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agreed by the assessment team (75).
3.2.5 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given Agreed by the assessment team (75). Condition 3-6 in accordance with Condition 3-1 should seek to develop performance indicators, and monitoring and evaluation of the SPFMP.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 247 of 264
12. Appendix 3. Stakeholder Submissions
MSC Technical Oversight and SCS Response- Received after the publication of the PCDR
Reference Details CAB Response
Ref
Type Page
Requirement
77 27.12.2 If the CAB determines the Do vessels in the client group Vessels in the client systems are sufficient, fish and fish fish outside of the UoC? This group (MazSardina)
20661 products from the fishery may is not clear from the do not fish outside the
Guidance enter into further certified chains statements on page 77 that UoC. Changes have of custody and be eligible to carry "no thread herring is being been made in the
27.12.1.2 v.1.3 - the MSC ecolabel. The CAB shall landed by other vessels report to clarify this.
CR determine: 27.12.2.1 The scope of outside the UoA/ UoC in the fishery certificate, including Mazatlan," but also the later the parties and categories of statement on the same page parties eligible to use the that "transhipment and certificate and the point(s) at mixing of product at the which chain of custody is needed. vessel level with product a. Chain of custody certification outside the UoA is a very shall always be required following minor risk." Do these a change of ownership of the statements refer to vessels product to any party not covered that are not part of the client by the fishery certificate. group, or to client group vessels fishing outside the UoC (geographically)? 77 27.12.2 If the CAB determines the The target eligibility date is Target Eligibility date systems are sufficient, fish and fish given as 17 November 2016. has been changed to products from the fishery may This date does not fit with September 26, 2016, enter into further certified chains 27.6.1, which requires the the estimated date of of custody and be eligible to carry date to be the date of certification the MSC ecolabel. The CAB shall certification of the fishery, or
determine: 27.12.2.1 The scope of any date up to six months The Reference
the fishery certificate, including prior to the date of (regarding change of the parties and categories of publication of the PCDR. ownership) does not
Minor
20662
27.6.1 v.1.3 parties eligible to use the Please correct the eligibility seem to refer to the
- certificate and the point(s) at date and provide rationale. same issue as the
CR which chain of custody is needed. comment. a. Chain of custody certification shall always be required following a change of ownership of the product to any party not covered by the fishery certificate.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 248 of 264
77 If the CAB determines the systems The report explains on page Changes have been , are sufficient, fish and fish 77 that "no tracking, tracing made to the report 78 products from the fishery may or segregation systems which clarifies that enter into further certified chains currently occur on vessel to while the fishery does of custody and be eligible to carry the point of landing." This have a system to the MSC ecolabel. The CAB shall ultimately indicates that separate species- determine: 27.12.2.1 The scope of product from the fishery will based sets into the fishery certificate, including not be able to carry the different wells in the parties and categories of ecolabel. Page 78 also states holds, this system is parties eligible to use the "with traceability systems in unable to cleanly certificate and the point place, product will be eligible separate the Unit's (s) at which chain of custody is to enter further certified MSC-eligible (3 needed. a. Chain of custody chains of custody." It is Opisthonema spp.) certification shall always be unclear throughout the from non MSC-eligible required following a change of traceability section whether product (mainly non- ownership of the product to any the client intends to use the target retained minor party not covered by the fishery ecolabel on product. Given spp.). For this reason
certificate. b. Chain of custody the sentence above from page the report now states
certification may be required at an 77, the report should state that traceability and earlier stage than change of that traceability and segregation systems
Minor
20663
27.12.2 v.1.3
- ownership if the team determines segregation systems are not in are in place for
CR that the systems within the fishery place and product from the canned products but are not sufficient to make sure all fishery is therefore not fish meal products fish and fish products identified as eligible to carry the ecolabel. from the fishery are such by the fishery originate from Please clarify. not eligible to carry the certified fishery. c. If the point the ecolabel. where chain of custody certification is required is covered At the moment the by the fishery certificate, the team client does not intend shall determine the parties or to use the ecolabel on category of parties covered by the the product, but the fishery certificate that require client has confirmed chain of custody certification. their interest to use the eco-label in the future, for both their canned and fish meal products.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 249 of 264
78 If the CAB determines the systems The report explains that Maz Sardina and Maz are sufficient, fish and fish MazIndustrial is vertically Industrial are affiliate products from the fishery may integrated, and there is no companies under enter into further certified chains change of ownership from the Grupo Pinsa, for the of custody and be eligible to carry point of landing as the purpose of this report the MSC ecolabel. The CAB shall product moves into and for greater clarity determine: 27.12.2.1 The scope of processing. However, the we've opted to modify the fishery certificate, including report must clarify where CoC this section and the parties and categories of begins. Does 27.12.2.1(b) consider the transfer parties eligible to use the apply, and CoC is required at of product from Maz certificate and the point an earlier stage than the first Sardina to Maz (s) at which chain of custody is change in ownership? Industrial as "change needed. a. Chain of custody of ownership". certification shall always be required following a change of
ownership of the product to any party not covered by the fishery
Minor 20664 certificate. b. Chain of custody
27.12.2.1a v.1.3
- certification may be required at an
CR earlier stage than change of ownership if the team determines that the systems within the fishery are not sufficient to make sure all fish and fish products identified as such by the fishery originate from the certified fishery. c. If the point where chain of custody certification is required is covered by the fishery certificate, the team shall determine the parties or category of parties covered by the fishery certificate that require chain of custody certification. (blank) Please clarify the relationship Clarification has been between the client group, added to the report: " Maz Sardina, and Maz The Maz Sardina fleet Industrial. They appear to be and Maz Industrial
used interchangeably processing plant are throughout the report, but it affiliate companies is unclear if there is a under the umbrella of
20665
Guidance *N/A v.1.3 distinction (and if so, what). the PINSA Group, and thus considered to be part of a vertically integrated supply chain."
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 250 of 264
13. Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency
The team has determined a normal surveillance level with on-site surveillance audits for each subsequent year, this was determined by the surveillance scored obtained as a result of the number of more than 5 open conditions (CR 27.22.1.2 )
Table A4: Fishery Surveillance Plan (CR 27.22.1) Score from CR Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Table C3 Category On-site On-site On-site On-site surveillance Normal 4 or more surveillance surveillance surveillance audit & re- Surveillance audit audit audit certification site visit
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 251 of 264
14. Appendix 6 Objections Process
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 252 of 264
15. Appendix 7. Supporting Evidence
Appendix 7.1 Confirmation of Modified Assessment Tree
Confirmation of Modified MSC Assessment Tree, Interpretation, and Interpretive Guidance (based on the fishery being based on a low trophic stock complex of three thread herring species)
Having analyzed the characteristics of the fishery, SCS Global Services (SCS) proposed to use a modified MSC assessment tree including additions to the interpretation and interpretive guidance to account for the fishery being a low trophic level stock complex of three thread herring species. MSC Certification Requirements (CR v1.3, January 2013) is being used in the assessment of this fishery.
The Certification Requirements may be found by following the link below: http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/msc-scheme-requirements/msc-certification- requirements-v1.3/view
Stakeholders were invited to provide comments on the suitability of the modified Assessment Tree for use in this fishery for a period of 30 days. No comments were received and the tree is now confirmed. The changes are in different colors depending on where the changes occur in MSC scheme documents: performance indicator tables versus text following tables (both considered binding portions of the certification requirements) or in Guidance to the Certification Requirements (not binding). Additional comments regarding this fishery may be sent to SCS at: Sian Morgan, Ph.D. Manager SCS Global Services, Inc. 2000 Powell St., Suite, 600 Emeryville, CA 94608 Office: 510.452.6392 (USA) Fax at: 510.452.6884 (USA) Email at: [email protected]
In this system, the LRP(s) are calculated as a fraction of the TRP – this is specified in the management plan for small pelagics in the Gulf of CA, Mexico. Because of this, if there is a generic TRP, one or more LRPs calculated from this will all be the same fraction of the TRP. It should also be expected that similar reference points, based on fishing mortality, should be appropriate for all three species, as they have nearly identical life history traits/rates. However, there should be the ability to estimate separate catch limits by species, based on differences in the abundances of the three Opisthonema species. Assuring that stocks are harvested relative to their catch limits provides assurance that removals will not exceed biologically based limits.
We are proposing that the following be inserted in the corresponding sections of the PI tables, interpretation of PI table requirements (CBxxx) and guidance (GCxxx) .
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 253 of 264
Applicable to P1 overall. Change from “No requirements” to:
CB2.1 (p. C144 ) General requirements for Principle 1:
Addition: If the fishery is acting on a stock complex, every SI and SG in P1 needs to include a description about how it is being assessed and in case that catch policies are defined on the whole complex, how evidence is supporting the overall goal that “none of the component stocks are reduced below their limit reference point”.
PI 1.1.1 - Stock status PISGs. Addition: CB2.2.5.1 (p. C146) The stock complex and its components are at a level which maintains high productivity and that have a low probability of recruitment overfishing.
PI 1.1.2 - Reference points Change: PI. Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock complex.
PI 1.1.2 - Reference points Addition: CB2.3.8.1 (p. C149) If the fishery is acting on a stock complex, application of generic reference points need to be justified or specific reference points are to be set. A clear and detailed description is needed if one or more reference points are used to evaluate the whole stock complex and/or in cases where the components cannot be separated in the catch/landings; rationale shall be given demonstrating how inferences are made such that applying this TRP to the whole complex will achieve individual LRPs to keep each species component above biologically based limits.
PI 1.1.2 - Reference points Addition: GC2.3.8.1 (p. GC61) In the case of stock complexes, generic reference points may be set to work relevant to a collective set of components within a larger stock complex. For example, a target reference point can be set to keep fishing mortality around 0.85Fmsy for the whole stock complex; the rationale needs to explain how it is expected that applying this TRP to the whole complex will achieve individual LRPs for each component to fall under Blim.
PI 1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding Change PI: Stock rebuilding : Where the stock complex or any component of the complex is depleted, there is an explicit rationale describing how changes in the harvest level intend to rebuild any depleted component of the complex, or the overall complex, within a specified timeframe.
PIs 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy Change: PI. There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place that is applied to individual components or to the entire stock complex.
PIs 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy Addition: CB2.5.3 (p.C159) The harvest strategy provides a rationale describing how it is expected that the aims and procedures are consistent with management goals that are stated for both the complex and components.
PIs 1.2.2 HCR and T Change: PI. There are well defined and effective HCR(s) designed and applied to individual components of the stock or the entire complex.
PIs 1.2.2 HCR and T Addition: CB2.6.2 (p.C160) The HCR(s) is/are provide(s) a rationale describing how it is expected that the aims and procedures are consistent with management goals that are stated for both the complex and components.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 254 of 264
PI 1.2.3 Information and Monitoring Change: PI. Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy. In the case of stock complexes, the information must come from a statistical sampling program.
PI 1.2.4 Assessment of Stock Status Change: PI There is an adequate assessment of the stock status. In the case of stock complexes, status of component stocks is considered.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 255 of 264
Appendix 7.2 Vessel List
Vessel Carrying Capacity
1 150
2 153
3 188
4 188
5 192
6 216
7 250
8 238
9 238
10 238 Source: INP 2013. Resultados del Programa de Observadores a Bordo de la Flota Sardinera 2012-2013
Name of Vessels in Maz Sardina Fleet:
1. Maz Sardina I 2. Maz Sardina II 3. Maz Sardina III 4. Maz Sardina IV 5. Maz Sardina V 6. Maz SardinaVI 7. Maz Sardina VII 8. Maz Sardina VIII (under construction) 9. Maz Sardina IX (under construction) 10. Pancho Villa
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 256 of 264
Appendix 7.3 Species List Retained and discarded weight volumes (mt) of target and non-target species including percentage of total catch for the 65 observed sets during the 2013-14 season for the Mazatlan-based small pelagic fishery, fishing in the waters of Sinaloa and Nayarit. Species quantified by individual number (turtles, dolphins, whales, sea lions) are not given here.
Genre Species Common name Retained Discarded Total Total % (ret (Spanish) volume Volume Volume +disc.) of TC Opisthonema libertate Crinuda 26803.5 601.91 27405.41 0.4632 Opisthonema medirastre Crinuda 10488.81 0 10488.81 0.1773 Opisthonema bulleri Crinuda 12490.41 0 12490.41 0.2111 Cetengraulis mysticetus Bocona 3399.63 3265.06 6664.69 0.1126 Trachurus symmetricus Charrito 0.58 0 0.58 0.0000 Scomber japonicus Macarela 3.4 0 3.4 0.0001 Albula vulpes Lisón 0.15 0 0.15 0.0000 Anchoa spp Anchoa 0.01 0 0.01 0.0000 Anchovia macrolepidota Sardina Bocona 0.49 0 0.49 0.0000 Arius platypogon Chihuil1 58.12 0 58.12 0.0010 Arius seemani Chihuil2 0.1 0 0.1 0.0000 Bagre panamensis Chihuil3 264.34 0 264.34 0.0045 Bagre pinnimaculatus Bagre 21.15 0 21.15 0.0004 Balistes polylepis Cochito 0.84 0 0.84 0.0000 Caranx caballus Cocinero 0.19 0 0.19 0.0000 Caranx caninus Torito 10.41 0.1 10.51 0.0002 Centropomus armatus Robalo 4.02 0 4.02 0.0001 Centropomus nigrencens Robalo2 0.19 0 0.19 0.0000 Centropomus robalito Constantino 3.59 0 3.59 0.0001 Chaetodipterus zonatus Mona 0.19 0 0.19 0.0000 Chloroscombus orqueta Orqueta 1.46 0 1.46 0.0000 Conodon serrifer Serrano 9.12 0 9.12 0.0002 Coriphena hippurus Dorado 0.31 0 0.31 0.0000 Cynoscion reticulatus Curvina1 167.88 0 167.88 0.0028 Cynoscion xanthulus Curvina2 156.91 0 156.91 0.0027 Diapterus peruvianus Mojarra 126.18 0 126.18 0.0021 Euthinus linneatus Bonita 48.52 48.52 97.04 0.0016 Haemulopsis leuciscus Burrito1 182.94 0 182.94 0.0031 Hoplopagrus guntherii Pargo tecomate 1.16 0 1.16 0.0000 Larimus effulgens Curvina Chata 190.53 0 190.53 0.0032 Lile stolifera Charal 11.45 0 11.45 0.0002 Lobotes pacificus Bacoca 1.07 0 1.07 0.0000 Lutjanus colorado Pargo 0.73 0 0.73 0.0000 enchilado Lutjanus guttatus Pargo lunarejo 0.03 0 0.03 0.0000 Lutjanus jordani Pargo colmillon 18.08 0 18.08 0.0003 Micropogonias ectenes Berrugata 17.04 0 17.04 0.0003 Peprilus medius Chabela 25.52 0 25.52 0.0004 Pliosteostoma lutipinnis Sardina 35.52 0 35.52 0.0006 machete Polydactylus aproximans Raton2 11.26 0 11.26 0.0002
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 257 of 264
Polydactylus opercularis Ratón 0.49 0 0.49 0.0000 Pomadasys nitidus Burrito2 10.87 0 10.87 0.0002 Pomadasys panamensis Burrito3 0.97 0 0.97 0.0000 Pseudopeneus grandisquamis Chivito 0.97 0 0.97 0.0000 Sarda orientalis Bonita 1.29 0 1.29 0.0000 Scomberomorus sierra Sierra 48.13 0 48.13 0.0008 Selar crumenophthalmus Ojotón 0.49 0 0.49 0.0000 Selene peruviana Espejo 11.84 0 11.84 0.0002 Sphyraena ensis Barracuda 283.28 0 283.28 0.0048 Stellifer ericymba Corvineta 28.43 0 28.43 0.0005 Stellifer fuerthii Corvinita chata 84.91 0 84.91 0.0014 Stellifer illecebrosus Corvineta 210.28 0 210.28 0.0036 plateada Symphurus elongatus Lengua 1.38 0 1.38 0.0000 Trachinotus kennedyi Palometa 3.07 0 3.07 0.0001 Xenichtys xanti Ojotón de 0.29 0 0.29 0.0000 piedra Aetobatus narinari Gavilán 1.35 0.24 1.59 0.0000 Dasyatis longus Raya arenera 0.04 0 0.04 0.0000 Mobula japanica Diablo 0.97 0 0.97 0.0000 chupasangre Rhinoptera steindachneri Tecolote 0.26 1.22 1.48 0.0000 Sphyrna lewini Cornuda 0.37 0 0.37 0.0000 Callinectes toxotes Jaiba 0.03 0 0.03 0.0000 Litopeneus stilyrostris Camarón azul 1.54 0 1.54 0.0000 Litopeneus vannamei Camarón 3.64 0 3.64 0.0001 blanco Trachypeneus pacificus Camarón cebra 0.49 0 0.49 0.0000 Total 55251.21 3917.05 59168.26 Source: INP 2014. Resultados del Programa de Observadores a Bordo de la Flota Sardinera 2013-2014
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 258 of 264
Appendix 7.4 Excerpts from the Mitigation Measures Protocol
The following are sections related to ray mitigation strategies and released published in 2015 by Maz Sardina S.A. de C.V in the “Protocolo de Navegacion y Medidas de Mitigacion para la Pesca de Pelagicos Menores del Sur del Golfo de California 2015”
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 259 of 264
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 260 of 264
Appendix 7.5 Support Letter for Client Action Plan
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 261 of 264
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 262 of 264
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 263 of 264
End of Report-
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 264 of 264