Marine Stewardship Council fisheries assessments

Lloyd’s Register 6 Redheughs Rigg South Gyle Edinburgh, EH12 9DQ United Kingdom

T +44 (0)13 1335 6600 E [email protected] www.lr.org

South Africa Hake trawl

Announcement Comment Draft Report

Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) Lloyd’s Register

Assessment team Jim Andrews, Giuseppe Scarcella, Johanna Pierre

Fishery client South African Deep-Sea Trawling Industry Association (SADSTIA)

Assessment Type Third re-assessment

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR140219 LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Assessment Data Sheet

Fishery name South Africa Hake Trawl Fishery

Species and stock Deep water cape hake, Merluccius paradoxus Shallow water cape hake, Merluccius capensis

CAB details Name Lloyd’s Register

Address 6 Redheughs Rigg Edinburgh EH12 9DQ

Phone/Fax 0131 335 6649

Email [email protected]

Contact name(s) Kate Morris

Client details South African Deep-Sea Trawling Industry Association (SADSTIA)

Address SADSTIA, Harbour Place, 7 Martin Hammerschlag Way, PO Box 2066, Cape Town 8000, South Africa

Phone/Fax +27 (0) 21 425 2727

Email [email protected]

Contact name(s) Johann Augustyn

Assessment Team Team Leader Jim Andrews

P1 Assessor Giuseppe Scarcella

P2 Assessor Johanna Pierre

Copyright © 2019 by Lloyd’s Register All rights reserved. No portion of this report may be reproduced in any manner for use by any other MSC Conformity Assessment Body without the express written permission of Lloyd’s Register, and subject to such conditions specified by Lloyd’s Register in any such permission.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 1 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

1 Table of Contents 1 Table of Contents ...... 2 1.1 List of Tables ...... 5 1.2 List of Figures ...... 6 2 Glossary ...... 7 3 Executive summary ...... 8 4 Report details ...... 11 4.1 Authorship and peer review details ...... 11 4.2 Peer Reviewers ...... 12 4.3 RBF Training ...... 12 4.4 Version details ...... 12 5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview ...... 13 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification ...... 13 5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment ...... 13 5.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification ...... 15 5.2 Assessment results overview ...... 15 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement...... 15 5.2.2 Principle level scores ...... 15 5.2.3 Summary of conditions ...... 15 5.2.4 Recommendations ...... 15 6 Evaluation results ...... 16 6.1 Eligibility date ...... 16 6.2 Traceability within the fishery ...... 16 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody ...... 17 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody ...... 17 7 Scoring ...... 19 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores ...... 19 7.2 Principle 1 ...... 20 7.2.1 Principle 1 background ...... 20 7.2.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ...... 26 7.2.3 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 27 PI 1.1.1 – Stock status (M. paradoxus) ...... 27 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy (M. paradoxus)...... 29 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools (M. paradoxus) ...... 32 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring (M. paradoxus) ...... 35 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status (M. paradoxus) ...... 37 PI 1.1.1 – Stock status (M. capensis in South Africa) ...... 40 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy (M. capensis in South Africa) ...... 42 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools (M. capensis in South Africa) ...... 45 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring (M. capensis in South Africa) ...... 47

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 2 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status (M. capensis in South Africa) ...... 50 7.3 Principle 2 ...... 53 7.3.1 Principle 2 background ...... 53 7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 83 PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome ...... 83 PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy ...... 86 PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information ...... 89 PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome ...... 91 PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy ...... 93 PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information ...... 96 PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome ...... 98 PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy ...... 100 PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information ...... 103 PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome ...... 105 PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy ...... 107 PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information ...... 110 PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome ...... 112 PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy ...... 114 PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information ...... 116 7.4 Principle 3 ...... 119 7.4.1 Principle 3 background ...... 119 7.4.2 Governance and Policy ...... 119 7.4.3 Fishery-specific management ...... 125 7.4.4 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 129 PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework ...... 130 PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities ...... 134 PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives ...... 138 PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework ...... 140 PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities ...... 143 PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives ...... 146 PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives ...... 148 PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes ...... 150 PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement ...... 154 PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation ...... 157 8 Appendices ...... 159 8.1 Assessment information ...... 159 8.1.1 Previous assessments ...... 159 8.1.2 Small-scale fisheries ...... 159 8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques ...... 160 8.2.1 Site visits ...... 160 8.2.2 Stakeholder participation ...... 160

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 3 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

8.2.3 Evaluation techniques ...... 160 8.2.4 Modified assessment tree ...... 160 8.3 Peer Review reports ...... 161 8.4 Stakeholder input ...... 162 8.5 Conditions – delete if not applicable ...... 163 8.6 Client Action Plan ...... 163 8.7 Surveillance ...... 164 8.8 Risk-Based Framework ...... 165 8.8.1 Plan for RBF Activities at the site visit ...... 165 8.8.2 RBF outputs...... 165 8.9 Harmonised fishery assessments ...... 166 8.9.1 At Announcement Comment Draft Report Stage ...... 166 8.9.2 Following site visit ...... 168 8.10 Objection Procedure – delete if not applicable...... 169 9 References ...... 170 9.1 Principle 1 ...... 170 9.2 Principle 2 ...... 170 9.3 Principle 3 ...... 174 10 List of Vessels & Companies in Unit of Certification ...... 178 10.1 South African Deep Sea Trawl Industry Association (SADSTIA) Members ...... 178 10.2 South East Coast Inshore Fishing Association (SECIFA) Members...... 180

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 4 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

1.1 List of Tables Table 1: Fisheries program documents versions...... 12 Table 2: Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) ...... 13 Table 3: Traceability within the fishery ...... 16 Table 4: Provisional Performance Indicator (PI) scores indicated for the South African hake Units of Assessment. A score of “>80” indicates that the MSC pass level appears to be met; “60-79” indicates that a condition of certification may be required; and “<60” indicates that the information currently available does not meet the MSC Standard...... 19 Table 5: Key parameter estimates for the updated RS models (biomass units are thousand tons). Cases where the current spawning biomass is below its MSY value are highlighted in yellow...... 25 Table 6: Percentage difference between estimates reported Table 5 above for the updated RS and for the 2018 RS in MARAM/IWS/DEC2018/Hake/P3. A negative value indicates that the estimates for the updated RS are lower than previously...... 25 Table 7: Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ...... 26 Table 8: Assessment of Principle 2 components for the cumulative impacts of overlapping MSC UoAs. Namibian fishery information is sourced from the assessment team for that fishery...... 54 Table 9: Habitat types that occur within the trawl footprint for the South African hake-directed demersal trawl fishery. (Source: Sink et al. 2012)...... 56 Table 10: Habitat types in approximate order of decreasing expected impact and concern as indicated by the number of criteria indicating concern, then percentage of total habitat extent within the hake trawl footprint, and then by decreasing vulnerability. Highlighted cells indicate concern under each of four criteria: habitat vulnerability, extent, proportion of total habitat extent within footprint and trawl intensity. (For full legend and table, refer to Sink et al. 2012, Table 7). Note that protection levels shown do not include marine protected areas gazetted in 2018...... 57 Table 11: Habitats characterized in the South African National Biodiversity Assessment that may support Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and occur within the hake trawl footprint. Habitats are listed in order of expected vulnerability, and with commensurate levels of certainty that they are coincident with VMEs. Habitats that may be within the footprint but for which less than 5% has been trawled are not considered (Source: Sink et al. 2012)...... 58 Table 12: Primary and secondary species caught in the hake trawl fishery represented as a percentage of the total catch and a percentage of the hake (M. paradoxus and M. capensis). Data extracted from the SADSTIA observer database for the period, 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2018) was extracted from the observer’s catch composition samples in the unsorted catch, which was raised to the total catch...... 61 Table 13: Primary and Secondary species recorded in the deepwater and inshore trawl South African hake fisheries, 2005 – 18. (Sources: Greenstone, 2013; Williamson et al. 2018a; SADSTIA Observer Database). * = % total observed catch (1st January 2010 to 31 December 2018), for deepwater and inshore trawl fishing effort. Greenstone (2013) reports mean % landings (+ standard deviation) by hake- and sole-directed directed trawlers (2007 – 2011, hake-directed vessels shown first in cells, where two values are shown +SD). PUCL = Precautionary Upper Catch Limit, CPUE = Catch Per Unit Effort, SASSI = South African Sustainable Seafood Initiative...... 65 Table 14: ETP fish species reported from the inshore hake trawl fishery (Weston & Attwood, 2017; IUCN, 2019). NEMBA = National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 2004; TOPS = Threatened or Protected Species listed in s 97 of NEMBA. JARA = "Just Another Red List Assessment”. JARA assesses extinction risk and enables a display of the probability of population decline against IUCN Red List categories; GL = generation length (Winker, 2019; Winker & Sherley, 2019)...... 73 Table 15: Seabird that interact with the hake trawl fishery and their status, population trends and threats. ... 75 Table 16: List of Principle 2 scoring elements considered for each MSC Principle 2 Performance Indicator. Additional information sought focuses on the time period since the 2015 reassessment (Andrews et al. 2015). (The term “data deficient” here is used to indicate whether or not it the scoring element meets the criteria set by the MSC for the relevant scoring element in Table 3 of FCR v2.1, and which would trigger the use of the “Risk Based Framework” in order to assess the impact of the fishery on that element)...... 79 Table 17: Summary of key legislation in place for managing fisheries in the South African EEZ...... 120 Table 18: Summary of key legislation in place for managing fisheries in the Namibian EEZ...... 121 Table 19: Summary of previous assessment conditions ...... 159 Table 20: Small scale fisheries ...... 159 Table 21: Summary of the RBF activities that will be required at the site visit...... 165 Table 22: Overlapping fisheries ...... 166 Table 23: Overlapping fisheries information ...... 166

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 5 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Table 24: Scoring differences between overlapping fisheries...... 167 Table 25: Rationale for scoring differences between overlapping fisheries...... 167

1.2 List of Figures Figure 1: Map of the unit of assessment area showing distribution of the two hake species, M. paradoxus (deep water cape hake) and M. capensis (shallow water cape hake)...... 14 Figure 2: Total catches assumed for M. paradoxus and M. capensis for all Models presented in Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2017 ...... 18 Figure 3: Generalised distribution of the two Cape hake species, Merluccius capensis and M. paradoxus (after M. Smith, Capfish) ...... 21 Figure 4: SA hake trawl footprint 2002-2007 (source Wilkinson, CapFish)...... 21 Figure 5: Species distribution for southern African hake (adapted from Payne 1989)...... 22 Figure 6: Female spawning biomass trajectories are shown for all the nine models reported on here with the purpose of comparing the 2017 model (black curves; reference case with Ricker model) with the 2019 RS models (blue curves). Recruitment is also shown plotted against spawning biomass. .... 24 Figure 7: The Benguela and Agulhas Currents, which are heavily influential in defining the ecosystem supporting the hake fishery. (Source: Davies et al. 2015)...... 55 Figure 8: New Marine Protected Areas in South African waters, approved in October 2018 (Source: https://www.sanbi.org/media/south-africa-announces-new-marine-protected-area-network/ [Accessed 1 April 2019])...... 60 Figure 9: Composition of discards (% of sorted samples) recorded by observers on offshore hake trawl vessels in (a) 2016 and (b) 2017. (Sources: Smith 2016a, Williamson 2017)...... 64 Figure 10: VMS Plot for deep-sea trawlers during January 2018. VMS records shown as points, extent of the historical trawl footprint shown as purple-bounded area. (DAFF 2018b) ...... 126 Figure 11: VMS Plot for inshore trawlers during January 2018. VMS records shown as points, extent of the historical trawl footprint shown as purple-bounded area. (DAFF 2018c) ...... 127

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 6 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

2 Glossary

BLSA Birdlife South Africa

Client South African Deep-Sea Trawling Industry Association

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries1

DEFF Department of Environment, Forestry & Fisheries2

DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.3

DWG Demersal Working Group

ICSEAF International Commission for South East Atlantic Fisheries

LR Lloyds’ Register

MARAM Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group, University of Cape Town

MPA Marine Protected Area

MSC Marine Stewardship Council

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

sp MSYL Spawning biomass at which the resource, if fished on a sustainable basis, delivers MSY (i.e. BMSY)

OMP Operational Management Procedures

OROP Offshore Resources Observer Programme

PUCL Precautionary Upper Catch Limit

RMWG Resource Management Working Group

RSA Republic of South Africa

RY Replacement Yield

SADSTIA South African Deep-Sea Trawling Industry Association

SAEON South African Environmental Observation Network

SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute

SASSI South African Sustainable Seafood Initiative

SECIFA South East Coast Inshore Fishing Association

TAC Total Allowable Catch

UCT University of Cape Town

VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

1 Following the South African General Election in May 2019 the Government has decided to merge DAFF with Environmental Affairs to form a new department, DEFF. The transition from DAFF to DEFF is due to be completed by the end of 2019. 2 See note 1 supra. 3 See note 1 supra.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 7 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

3 Executive summary To be drafted at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage To be completed at Public Certification Report stage » This report is the Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR) which provides details of the MSC assessment process for the South African Hake Trawl Fishery. The assessment process began with publication of the ACDR on 27th September 2019 and is due to be concluded on 28th May 2020. » Important Notes: › This report does not present a final scoring outcome or a certification decision. The final scoring and certification decision will take place after the assessment team has conducted the site visit and has had the opportunity to review additional information and the views of stakeholders about this fishery. › This is the first of a series of reports that will be produced for comment during the assessment process. The certification decision will be set out in later reports that will be published for stakeholder comment. » The scoring presented in this report has not been reviewed by stakeholders, or peer reviewers – these steps will all take place from here onwards and are outlined here. › Stakeholders are encouraged to review the scoring presented in this assessment. If you have any comments you must use the MSC Stakeholder Input Form to provide evidence to the team of where changes to scoring are necessary. Please note that any comments that are not submitted using the correct form may not be admissible in the assessment process. › All stakeholder comments will be published ahead of the site visit. Stakeholders can meet with the assessment team onsite during the site visit which will take place in Cape Town, South Africa, between the 28th October and 1st November 2019. » The Target Eligibility Date for this assessment is 28th May 2020, which is the day after the current MSC Certificate for this fishery is due to expire. The assessment team for this fishery assessment comprised of Jim Andrews who acted as team leader and primary Principle 3 specialist; Johanna Pierre who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle 2 and Giuseppe Scarcella who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle 1. Fishery strengths The strengths identified in this initial assessment of the fishery include: - » For the target hake stocks: - › The stocks are well monitored, with a well-developed management regime that provides opportunities for participation by a wide range of stakeholders. › The fishery is managed under South African legislation, which meets the requirements of international conventions. › Hake are caught by a fleet that is limited in size by a restrictive licensing scheme and all vessels are subject to a quota and limitations on days at sea. » Overall, a substantial body of information has been accumulated that is relevant to managing impacts of the UoAs on the marine environment as required under MSC Principle P2. In particular › Recently updated and new assessment work undertaken on primary, secondary and some ETP species, › Research and management of seabird interactions with offshore trawlers, and, › Knowledge of the distribution of benthic habitats in the UoA area and the recent introduction of significant spatial management measures designed for habitat protection. » With regard to the management framework for the fishery, the strengths include: - › A track record of good compliance with the management regime by members of the UoA; › Decision making processes in South Africa that are well established, with procedures in place for dispute resolution that have been tested and proven to be effective; and › A transparent system in place for evaluating the performance of the management system, which includes the participation of international experts as well as South African stakeholders.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 8 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Fishery weaknesses The weaknesses identified in this initial assessment of the fishery, which require further investigation include: - » For the target hake stocks: - » There has been a need in the past for rebuilding of the M. paradoxus stock, which is now perceived to be in a better state also due to the improvement in the modelling. However, the uncertainty about the outcome of M. paradoxus stock can be considered a weakness, as is the fact that the M. paradoxus stock is may be shared and the stock assessments in South Africa and Namibia are presently carried out independently. » There is some uncertainty about the extent to which South Africa and Namibian M. paradoxus stock may be shared. » With regard to impacts on the marine environment: - › progressing measures for the management of habitat impacts, particularly as relevant to VMEs 4, which are recently or newly implemented. › The lack of information available from the inshore sector is problematic for the assessment in a number of areas, including (in particular) secondary species and ETP interactions. » With regard to management and governance of the fishery: - › The management of the South African hake stock and the linked stocks in Namibia has not yet formally taken account of the linkages that may exist between the hake stocks, and the extent to which management arrangements may need to respond to this aspect of the fishery has not been determined. Summary of Key Issues for Further Investigation » For MSC Principle 1 (stock status) the key issues that have been identified for further investigation are:- › The potential transboundary nature of the stocks outside South African waters, especially for M. paradoxus can represent possible issues both in term of stock assessment and management. › The two species are caught together and there is a splitting algorithm used in the model to evaluate the status of each stock separately. › HS and HCRs are implemented on the basis that the two species are not shared with other countries and joint management arrangements area not yet in place. › There is a lack of information in the stock assessment models related to the fishing pressure outside South African waters. » For MSC Principle 2 (environmental impacts) the key issues that have been identified for further investigation are: - › Whether there is additional information available on the stock status of secondary and ETP species (and UoA-specific impacts on that status). › Management measures/strategies that apply to secondary species. › Effects of the UoA on benthic habitats (e.g. extent of UoA impacts since 2006 and more recently, findings of research investigating recovery timeframes). › Low levels of monitoring, and knowledge gaps relevant to the impacts of the inshore component of the UoA, e.g. impacts on seabirds and other ETP species, implementation of management measures/strategies, » For MSC Principle 3 (Management and Governance) the key issues that have been identified for further investigation are: - › The extent to which it is necessary to establish a system for organised and effective cooperation between South Africa and Namibia for the hake stocks in the region. › The current status of the monitoring, control and surveillance system in place for the units of assessment.

4 VMEs are defined in section GSA3.13.3.2 of the MSC Guidance to the MSC Fisheries Standard 2.01

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 9 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

› The decision-making processes that are in place for the ongoing management of the fishery and the upcoming rights allocation for the deep-sea trawl fishery. Determination » On completion of the initial review of information and scoring, the assessment team consider that the fishery meets the MSC Requirements in most respects, and that there are some areas where either further information is required, or where a condition of certification may be required to achieve the MSC Standard.. Rationale » There are a number of areas which reflect positively on the fishery: › There is a well-founded and thoroughly researched stock assessment and Operational Management Procedure available for this fishery which provide a clear scientific basis for sustainable management of the two hake stocks in South African waters. › The client fleets have shown a proactive approach to concerns raised in the past about environmental impacts of the fishery (notably interactions with birds and habitat impacts). Conditions & Recommendations » Following the site visit in October 2019 the team will review the initial assessment of the fishery presented in this report and re-score all of the Performance Indicators against which the fishery is evaluated. Once that process is completed the team will make a determination of whether or not the fishery meets the MSC Standard. If the fishery if found to meet the MSC Standard, the team may identify areas where improvement is needed, for which conditions of certification will be raised that will set out milestones for the fishery to achieve. The team’s determination of whether the fishery meets the MSC Standard and any conditions of certification will be set out in later versions of this report. For interested readers, the report also provides background to the target species and fishery covered by the assessment, the wider impacts of the fishery and the management regime, supported by full details of the assessment team, a full list of references used and details of the stakeholder consultation process. Lloyd’s Register confirm that this fishery is “within scope”, which means that it meets the eligibility criteria that the MSC for a fishery to enter the assessment process.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 10 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

4 Report details 4.1 Authorship and peer review details To be drafted at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage Peer reviewer information to be completed at Public Comment Draft Report stage All team members listed below have completed all requisite training and signed all relevant forms for assessment team membership on this fishery. Assessment team leader: Jim Andrews Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 3 Jim Andrews has over 25 years’ experience working in marine fisheries and environmental management. His previous experience includes running the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee as its Chief Executive from 2001 to 2005, and previously working as the SFC's Marine Environment Liaison Officer. During this time he was responsible for the regulation, management and assessment of inshore finfish and shellfish stocks along a 1,500km coastline. He has an extensive practical knowledge of both fisheries and environmental management and enforcement under UK and EC legislation. Jim has formal legal training & qualifications, with a special interest in the policy, governance and management of fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems. He has worked as an assessor and lead assessor on more than 25 MSC certifications within the UK, Europe, Africa, Australia, South America and Asia since 2007. In 2008 he worked with the MSC and WWF on one of the pilot assessments using the MSC Risk Based Assessment Framework (RBF) and is fully trained in the use of the RBF. He has carried out many peer reviews of MSC assessments and is a member of the MSC Peer Review College. Jim is certified as an MSC Team Leader, and as an auditor against the ISO 19011 standard. Expert team member: Dr. Giuseppe Scarcella Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 1. Giuseppe Scarcella is an experienced fishery scientist and population analyst and modeller, with wide knowledge and experience in the assessment of demersal stocks. He holds a first degree in Marine Biology and Oceanography (110/110) from the Unversità Politecnica delle Marche, and a Ph.D. in marine Ecology and Biology from the same university, based on a thesis "Age and growth of two rockfish in the Adriatic Sea". After his degree he was offered a job as project scientist in several research programs about the structure and composition of fish assemblage in artificial reefs, off-shore platform and other artificial habitats in the Italian Research Council – Institute of Marine Science of Ancona (CNR-ISMAR). During the years of employment at CNR-ISMAR he has gained experience in benthic ecology, statistical analyses of fish assemblage evolution in artificial habitats, fisheries ecology and impacts of fishing activities, stock assessment, otholith analysis, population dynamic and fisheries management. During the same years he attended courses of uni-multivariate statistics and stock assessment. He is also actively participating in the scientific advice process of FAO GFCM in the Mediterranean Sea. At the moment he is member of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries for the European Commission (STECF). He is author and co-author of more than 50 scientific paper peer reviewed journals and more than 150 national and international technical reports, most of them focused on the evolution of fish assemblages in artificial habitats and stock assessment of demersal species. For some years now, Dr Scarcella has been working in fisheries certification applying the Marine Stewardship Council standard for sustainable fisheries, currently concentrating on Principle 1 of the Standard. Furthermore, Dr Scarcella holds the credential as Fishery team leader (MSC v2.0). Expert team member: Dr. Johanna Pierre Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 2 Johanna Pierre has more than 15 years’ experience working on commercial fisheries, and their impacts, in marine and freshwater environments. Her work includes fisheries management, regulation and monitoring, sustainability assessments, audits and evaluations of environmental performance. She also works on management and policy that contributes to reducing the environmental effects of fishing. Johanna has worked with government, academia, non-profit organisations and industry. She has a Ph.D. in environmental biology and ecology (University of Alberta, Canada), a B.Sc. (Hons) (University of Canterbury, New Zealand), and completed post-doctoral studies at the University of Tokyo (Japan). Johanna is a certified MSC fishery team member, Chain of Custody auditor, and is trained in the use of the Risk-Based Framework. She is also a member of the MSC Peer Review College. Johanna has been involved in the assessment and peer review of trawl (e.g. New Zealand hoki, hake, southern blue whiting, ling) and longline fisheries (e.g. Ross Sea toothfish, SARPC toothfish, New Zealand ling) and pre-assessments of purse seine and pelagic and demersal longline fisheries.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 11 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

4.2 Peer Reviewers The MSC Peer Review College will propose the peer reviewers for this assessment at a later stage in the process. 4.3 RBF Training Jim Andrews, Giuseppe Scarcella and Johanna Pierre have been fully trained in the use of the MSC’s Risk Based Framework (RBF). 4.4 Version details The versions of the MSC fishery program documents are stated in the table below. Table 1: Fisheries program documents versions.

Document Version number

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.1

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.3

MSC Reporting Template Version 2.1

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 12 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment and Unit(s) of Certification 5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment To be drafted at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage This assessment considers two Units of Assessment (UoA). The difference between the two UoAs lies in the target species of hake. A description of the two species and their distribution is provided in section 7.2.1 of this report. The UoAs are describe in Table 2. Table 2: Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)

UoA 1 Description

Species Deep water cape hake, Merluccius paradoxus

Stock Deep water cape hake stock

Geographical area South Atlantic

Harvest method / gear Demersal otter trawl

South African Deep Sea Trawl Industry Association (SADSTIA) and South East Coast Client group Inshore Fishing Association (SECIFA)

Other eligible fishers There are no other eligible fishers.

UoA 2 Description

Species Shallow water cape hake, Merluccius capensis

Stock Shallow water cape hake stock

Geographical area South Atlantic

Harvest method / gear Demersal otter trawl

South African Deep Sea Trawl Industry Association (SADSTIA) and South East Coast Client group Inshore Fishing Association (SECIFA)

Other eligible fishers There are no other eligible fishers.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 13 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Figure 1: Map of the unit of assessment area showing distribution of the two hake species, M. paradoxus (deep water cape hake) and M. capensis (shallow water cape hake).

5.1.1.1 Scope of assessment with respect to the MSC Standard Lloyds Register considers that the fishery is within the scope set out in the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.1. Specifically: -

a) Target species §7.4.2.1 – the fishery does not target amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals. b) Destructive fishing practices §7.4.4.2 – no destructive fishing practices are used in the fishery c) Controversial unilateral exemptions to international agreements §7.4.3 - there are currently no controversial unilateral exemptions to international agreements affecting the fishery. d) Forced or child labour §7.4.4 – neither the client nor the client group have been prosecuted for a forced or child labour violation in the last 2 years. e) Controversial disputes §7.4.5 – there are understood to be mechanisms in place for resolving disputes between the fishery and the management system. f) Enhanced fishery §7.4.6 – these are not enhanced fisheries. g) Introduced Species Based Fishery §7.4.7 – neither target species is introduced. h) Inseparable or practically inseparable catches §7.5.8 – The two hake species under assessment have an overlapping distribution (see Figure 3), and although the two species are readily distinguished by trained operators, it is not commercially feasible to separate them when they are caught together due to the practical operation of the fishery. LR have therefore considered whether it is appropriate to implement the procedures set out in the FCR (v2.1) at §7.5.8 concerning IPI species.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 14 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

a. The stock assessment for the fisheries takes full account of their overlapping distribution and the mixed catch. Observer data from fishing vessels, biological information about the catch, and mathematical models are used to assess the status of the stocks of each stock. b. The most recent analysis for the fishery indicates that the overall species split in the catch is 90% M. paradoxus and 10% M. capensis (Figure 2). The MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements stipulate that there is a limit of 15% of the total catch for any species to be eligible for assessment as an “IPI” stock (FCR at §7.5.8.1c). However, the FCR also specifies that stocks which are certified separately are not eligible for IPI assessment (FCR at §7.5.8.1e) c. LR conclude that the IPI procedures need not be applied to the fishery, and that the information about catch composition is adequate to allow the assessment of each UoC independently. 5.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification This section of the report has been intentionally left blank. It will be completed as the assessment process progresses in accordance with the following directions from the Marine Stewardship Council: - • To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage • To be completed at Public Certification Report stage 5.2 Assessment results overview 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement This section of the report has been intentionally left blank. It will be completed as the assessment process progresses in accordance with the following directions from the Marine Stewardship Council: - • To be drafted at Final Draft Report • To be completed at Public Certification Report 5.2.2 Principle level scores This section of the report has been intentionally left blank. It will be completed as the assessment process progresses in accordance with the following directions from the Marine Stewardship Council: - • To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report 5.2.3 Summary of conditions This section of the report has been intentionally left blank. It will be completed as the assessment process progresses in accordance with the following directions from the Marine Stewardship Council: - • To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report 5.2.4 Recommendations This section of the report has been intentionally left blank. It will be completed as the assessment process progresses in accordance with the following directions from the Marine Stewardship Council: - • To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 15 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

6 Evaluation results 6.1 Eligibility date This fishery is already certified. The eligibility date is therefore the day after that on which the previous fishery certificate expires. This is due to be on the 27th May 2020, so the eligibility date will be the 28th May 2020. 6.2 Traceability within the fishery To be drafted at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage To be completed at Public Certification Report stage A description of the traceability arrangements in place for the fishery is provided in Table 3 below. This initial appraisal is based upon information presented prior to the site visit and will be updated after the site visit. Table 3: Traceability within the fishery

Factor Description

The offshore fleet target hake all year round, and only use the trawl gear specified in this UoC (120mm cod end mesh size). All hake caught by the offshore fleet are therefore eligible for certification. The risk of substitution of certified fish with non-certified fish and co-mingling of MSC and non- Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of MSC product is therefore considered to be very low for the Certification (UoC)? offshore fleet.

At certain times of year some of the vessels in the inshore If Yes, please describe: fleet may fish for other species of fish and in other areas using other types of fishing gear (trawls with a mesh size of - If this may occur on the same trip, on the same smaller than 120mm and as small as 75mm). Skippers are vessels, or during the same season; required to report the type of gear that they have used during - How any risks are mitigated. a fishing trip, so that MSC and non-MSC product are distinguished at the point of landing to avoid the substitution of certified fish with non-certified fish. The risk of co-mingling of MSC and non-MSC product is therefore considered to be very low.

No. The UoC vessels are only permitted to fish within South African waters and are limited to fishing within the “trawl footprint” area. Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC The vessels operating in the Unit of Certification are tracked geographic area? at all times by satellite VMS systems. The risk of a vessel fishing outside the UOC area is therefore very low. If Yes, please describe: The vessels are also required to report the fishing location, the type of fishing gear used, and the quantity of fish caught - If this may occur on the same trip; daily using a paper-based logbook system. These reports - How any risks are mitigated. are reconciled with landings records. There is therefore a high degree of confidence that the fishing activity carried out by the vessels under assessment is tracked and recorded by independently verifiable mechanisms.

Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and In the offshore fleet, the catch is sorted, headed and gutted non-certified products during any of the activities at sea, then frozen and stored in fish boxes that are labelled covered by the fishery certificate? This refers to both at- with the date of capture and fishing location. sea activities and on-land activities. In the inshore fleet, the catch is sorted, headed and gutted at sea, then stored on ice in fish boxes before landing. - Transport No non-certified fish are handled by vessels whilst at sea. It - Storage is possible that hake from non-certified fisheries (such as the

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 16 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

- Processing longline fishery) could be handled by clients after the point - Landing of landing. The evaluation of this risk is beyond the scope of - Auction the fishery assessment; hence this traceability evaluation ends at the point of landing and does not cover onward

transport, storage or processing (which are covered by If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. Chain of Custody certification).

Does transhipment occur within the fishery?

If Yes, please describe: There is no trans-shipment of fish at sea. All of the catch is - If transhipment takes place at-sea, in port, or landed, mainly to Cape Town and Mossel Bay in South both; Africa. - If the transhipment vessel may handle product from outside the UoC; - How any risks are mitigated.

Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution between certified and non-certified fish? No additional risks have been identified at this point in the assessment process. If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.

6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody To be drafted at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage To be completed at Public Certification Report stage LR has evaluated the eligibility of fish from this fishery to enter into further chains of custody as required by MSC FCR at §7.9.1, below. a) Eligibility to enter further certified chains of custody Tracking and traceability information for this fishery is considered sufficient for product to be eligible to enter further chains of custody. b) Parties eligible to use the fishery certificates The only companies eligible to use the fishery certificate are the South African Deep Sea Trawl Industry Association (SADSTIA) and the South East Coast Inshore Fishing Association (SECIFA). The only vessels eligible to operate within the fishery are those specified in this report or listed in the current MSC Certificate for the fishery. c) Eligible points of landing The eligible points of landing are Cape Town, Saldanha and Mossel Bay in South Africa. d) Point of change of ownership from which Chain of Custody certification is required The point of change of ownership for product from the fishery from which Chain of Custody certification is required are the points of landing listed above. All merchants and processors wishing to sell MSC certified fish that has been purchased from this fishery will therefore require their own Chain of Custody certification. 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter further chains of custody To be drafted at Announcement Comment Draft Report stage To be completed at Public Certification Report stage The two hake species under assessment have an overlapping distribution (see Figure 3), and when they are caught together it is not commercially feasible to separate them due to the practical operation of the fishery. The assessment team has therefore considered whether it is appropriate to implement the procedures set out in FCRv2.1 at §7.5.9 concerning IPI species.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 17 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

The most recent analysis for the fishery indicates that the overall species split of the catch is 90% M. paradoxus and 10% M. capensis (Rademeyer and Butterworth 2017). The FCR stipulates that there is a limit of 15% of the total catch for any IPI species to be eligible for assessment this way (FCR at §7.5.8.1c); further to this each species is certified separately (§7.5.8.1e).

Figure 2: Total catches assumed for M. paradoxus and M. capensis for all Models presented in Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2017 The stock assessment for the fisheries takes full account of their overlapping distribution and the mixed catch. Observer data and mathematical models are used to assess the status of each stock. It is concluded that the IPI procedures cannot be applied to the fishery, and that the information about catch composition is adequate to allow the assessment of each UoA independently.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 18 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7 Scoring 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores The provisional scoring ranges indicated at this stage in the assessment process are shown in the table below. Please note that this scoring does not indicate an assessment outcome, and that scoring is likely to change as the assessment progresses. Scoring rationales are presented in the following sections of the report. Table 4: Provisional Performance Indicator (PI) scores indicated for the South African hake Units of Assessment. A score of “>80” indicates that the MSC pass level appears to be met; “60-79” indicates that a condition of certification may be required; and “<60” indicates that the information currently available does not meet the MSC Standard.

Provisional Score Range Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) UoA 1 UoA 2 M. paradoxus M. capensis Outcome 1.1.1 Stock Status >80 >80 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy >80 >80 One 1.2.2 Harvest Control rules & tools 60-79 >80 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring >80 >80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 60-79 >80 2.1.1 Outcome >80 >80 Primary Species 2.1.2 Management strategy >80 >80 2.1.3 Information / Monitoring >80 >80 2.2.1 Outcome 60-79 60-79 Secondary Species 2.2.2 Management strategy 60-79 60-79 2.2.3 Information / Monitoring >80 >80 2.3.1 Outcome 60-79 60-79 Two ETP Species 2.3.2 Management strategy 60-79 60-79 2.3.3 Information strategy 60-79 60-79 2.4.1 Outcome 60-79 60-79 Habitats 2.4.2 Management strategy 60-79 60-79 2.4.3 Information strategy 60-79 60-79 2.5.1 Outcome >80 >80 Ecosystems 2.5.2 Management strategy >80 >80 2.5.3 Information >80 >80 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 60-79 60-79 Governance and 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities >80 >80 policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives >80 >80 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives >80 >80 Three 3.2.2 Decision making processes >80 >80 Fishery specific management system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement >80 >80 Monitoring & management 3.2.4 >80 >80 performance

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 19 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.2 Principle 1 The narrative text and scoring below is based on the information available to the assessment team prior to the site visit. Following the site visit this text will be revised to take account of new information gathered by the assessment team and submitted by stakeholders at the site visit. 7.2.1 Principle 1 background 7.2.1.1 Biology and distribution Merluccius spp are the dominant demersal predators in inshore and offshore waters off the south and west coasts of South Africa. Both M paradoxus (typically offshore) and M capensis (typically inshore) exhibit relatively slow growth, reaching 115 cm in around 14 years typical lifespan. Females grow to a larger size and are found at the extremes of the depth ranges. M paradoxus is a serial spawner, with early summer aggregations, a second autumn aggregation and spawning on the shelf edge on W and S coasts. M. capensis spawns in shallower water. For both species 1st spawning takes place in the third year at size 25-30cm. The larvae drift in currents before migrating to the seabed in shallow waters and moving to nursery areas around the South African coast, mostly in bay areas. The fish move offshore into deeper waters as they grow. Mature M. capensis typically inhabit waters on the South coast from 30-400m, while the deeper water M. paradoxus is typically found at 250-800m. Both species aggregate and remain close to bottom during daylight and disperse higher in water column at night. In particular, small M. paradoxus overlap with large M. capensis determining trophic interaction between the two species. This substantial overlap in habitats and distribution allows for predation between species as well as intra-specific predation (cannibalism). M paradoxus is dominant on the West Coast, while M. capensis is dominant on the South coast. Large M. capensis are found seasonally on the central Agulhas Bank and inshore (shallower than 100m), particularly in autumn. Lower densities of both species, but especially M. capensis, are found towards the border with Namibia. In South Africa, one stock of M. paradoxus is assumed and modelled using a ‘fleets as area’ approach for fishing on the West and South Coasts. Also, one stock of M. capensis if assumed for South Africa, also modelled using a ‘fleets as area’ approach for fishing on the West and South Coasts. These approaches have been extensively reviewed, by independent international reviewers who have provided comments on both the assessment approach and findings.. For the purposes of recent stock assessments, the boundaries of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) West Coast stock is taken as the Namibia–RSA border (Orange River), and in the Indian Ocean east of the distribution of the hake (RFIS, 2002). The UoC target species stocks in this MSC assessment are defined as being the two hake species (M. paradoxus and M. capensis) throughout their range in RSA (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The evidence that the fisheries carried out by Namibian vessels in Namibian waters targeting the two species are exploiting different stocks, genetically separate from the South African stocks is still under debate and during the site visit as well as during the interactions with the experts involved in the MSC certification of Namibia hake trawl fishery such issue will further analysed. According to the most recent scientific evidence (Stromme et al., 2015; Henriques et al., 2016) the hypothesis of a single M. paradoxus stock, shared between South Africa and Namibia fleets, is the most plausible view of this stock, while M. capensis exhibits a clear latitudinal cline in genetic differentiation and it is deemed to be not shared between the two countries. The assessment team note that research into the relationship between South African and Namibian M. paradoxus is still under investigation and that this perception of stock structure may change. The distributional overlap of the two species is mirrored by an overlap in the fishery: the offshore trawl fishery includes around 13% of M. capensis, while the inshore catch includes around 4% of M. paradoxus. In terms of weight, more M. capensis are caught in the offshore areas (an average of 14,600t pa) than in inshore areas (an average of 9,653t pa). Overall, M. paradoxus comprises 90% of catch, and the deep-sea trawl fleet contributes 85-90% of this catch. The footprint of the SA hake trawl fishery is shown in Figure 4. Most of the fishery takes place on the outer continental shelf, typically from just below the 250m contour as the shelf slope begins, down to 500m, and stretching from the Namibian border in the W to Algoa bay in the E, although the bulk of fish are caught West of 200E. The inshore hake trawl fishery is prosecuted primarily by small side-trawlers from the ports of Mossel Bay and Port Elizabeth working in S coast waters shallower than 110m and concentrated on the Agulhas Bank. It is closely related to the inshore sole fishery with some vessels targeting both species, and hake/sole rights always linked. The sole catch is fixed by a quota at around 500t per year (Attwood et al, 2011). This equates to around 3% of the total trawl catch in inshore waters (Table 5 & Table 6)), and is around 0.5% of the total trawl landings from the South African hake and sole fisheries.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 20 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Figure 3: Generalised distribution of the two Cape hake species, Merluccius capensis and M. paradoxus (after M. Smith, Capfish)

Figure 4: SA hake trawl footprint 2002-2007 (source Wilkinson, CapFish) The deep-sea fleet comprises wet fish trawlers of 25-40m and factory vessels up to 70m. The maximum size of the inshore trawlers is 30m, and these vessels land mainly wetfish. 7.2.1.2 Stock assessment data and modelling 7.2.1.2.1 Stock configurations The degree to which South African and Namibian hake stocks are linked is uncertain and would require further examination during the upcoming site visit. Probably, it is plausible to consider that the fishery for Benguela M paradoxus is a multi-area fishery targeting widely distributed species that straddle the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs); while M. capensis seems to be constituted by two different stocks, see Figure 5 which shows the spatial distribution of the two hake species. Therefore, it would be appropriate to review the approach to scoring the “management” PIs (1.2.x) for each species after the site visit, especially with respect to MSC CRv2.1 Table G2.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 21 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Figure 5: Species distribution for southern African hake (adapted from Payne 1989). 7.2.1.2.2 Stock assessments A wide range of data is collected including landings by size category for the commercial fisheries sectors, catch per haul from research surveys, and growth rate information. Various standardization and assessment models have been developed by integrating fisheries-dependent, fisheries-independent and biological data. CPUE data has been collected for many years (commercial and survey) and is now standardized using General Linear Modelling (GLM) approaches. Fishery independent summer surveys were conducted in most years from 1991. Since 1999 (except 2001 and 2002) autumn surveys of the entire south coast shelf up to 500m have been undertaken. Relative indices of resource abundance are based on the swept area method. Sample catch at length and ageing data, as well as species proportion data have also been collected. The stock assessment model which is used is a sex- and species- disaggregated age structured production model (ASPM) which is fitted to aging data, commercial catch and survey length frequency distributions, survey abundance indices, and standardised CPUE data. Some of the catch at length data is not disaggregated and where this the case corresponding model based quantities are similarly aggregated to facilitate their use in the model fitting process. This approach can generate estimates of depletion relative to original biomass corresponding to MSY or BMSY Models are reviewed through Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries (DAFF’s) Demersal Working Group with industry and through e.g. International review panels which meet annually towards the end of each year. Landings of M. paradoxus increased from the 1950s, peaking in the early 1970s at about 200,000t and decreased in the next decade to a low of about 80,000t. Decreased foreign activity following declaration of SA EEZ in 1977 accounted for most of this drop. CPUE for M paradoxus declined substantially (65-75%) from the 50’s to the late 70’s. Catches were relatively stable through the 1990’s and early 2000’s at about 115,000t, falling to around 105,000t between 2008 and 2012, and rising to 130,500t in 2013. CPUE varied without trend for 20 years, then declined, and has stabilized or increased in the last decade. Landings of M. capensis show a similar pattern, peaking at about 90,000t in the early 1970s, then gradually falling after the phasing out of foreign fisheries and the introduction of a management plan (“Operational Management Procedure” (OMP)) in 2005, to a relatively stable 25,000t. CPUE seems to have been increasing on and off since the late 70s. The 2018 Reference Set of Operating Models used for testing OMP2018 evidenced that M. paradoxus is above BMSY while higher uncertainties were evidenced for M capensis. The 2018 Reference Set of Operating Models used for testing

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 22 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

OMP2018 was not fully endorsed by the Panel for the 2018 International Stock Assessment workshop. The results for an updated RS that take account of the recommendations made by the Panel are synthesised in Figure 6, Table 5 & Table 6. There are some substantial changes to certain of the Beverton-Holt models (primarily as a result of finding improved minima for model fits rather than of correcting other of the issues identified by the Panel). These reflect more instances of an M. capensis population currently below its MSY level, but this status is not well determined in terms of the likelihood; furthermore, arguably these results are less plausible than those for the Ricker model, the fits for which have an appreciably better likelihood and reflect this population to be above its MSY level at present. This uncertainty about the status of the M. capensis population notwithstanding, projections for the updated Reference Set under OMP2018 indicate that the performance of this OMP remains fully adequate. However, during the site visit the assessment output will be further scrutinized in order to have a better understanding of the status of the stocks. The stock assessments for both species are carried out without including data from Namibian fisheries, because these have not been available to South African scientists. During the site visit the team will explore the potential impact of considering straddling hake stocks both in term of outcomes and management.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 23 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Figure 6: Female spawning biomass trajectories are shown for all the nine models reported on here with the purpose of comparing the 2017 model (black curves; reference case with Ricker model) with the 2019 RS models (blue curves). Recruitment is also shown plotted against spawning biomass.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 24 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Table 5: Key parameter estimates for the updated RS models (biomass units are thousand tons). Cases where the current spawning biomass is below its MSY value are highlighted in yellow.

M. paradoxus M. capensis

푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푡표푡 퐵2017 퐵2017 퐵푀푆푌 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푡표푡 퐵2017 퐵2017 퐵푀푆푌 퐾 퐵푀푆푌 퐵2017 퐵2017 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 MSY 퐾 퐵푀푆푌 퐵2017 퐵2017 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 Central Stock /퐾 /퐵푀푆푌 /퐾 /퐾 /퐵푀푆푌 /퐾 Model name Year Recruit MSY

(0) Oct 2017 1958 Ricker 515 115 127 245 0.25 1.11 0.22 137 196 63 141 334 0.72 2.23 0.32 81

(1) RS01 1952 306 49 74 172 0.24 1.52 0.16 143 379 88 268 587 0.71 3.04 0.23 110

(2) RS02 1958 Ricker 294 51 78 181 0.27 1.55 0.17 144 272 81 186 415 0.68 2.30 0.30 84

(3) RS03 1963 245 58 89 201 0.36 1.53 0.24 146 437 134 323 701 0.74 2.41 0.31 106 443 42 65 164 0.15 1.54 0.10 142 410 80 31 90 0.08 0.39 0.19 54 (4) RS04a 1952 Beverton- (5) RS05a 1958 Holt 435 42 68 172 0.16 1.65 0.10 141 483 97 24 75 0.05 0.25 0.20 63 (h=0.9) (6) RS06a 1963 457 44 86 206 0.19 1.96 0.10 144 584 121 18 60 0.03 0.15 0.21 83 751 170 233 474 0.31 1.37 0.23 122 514 146 82 195 0.16 0.56 0.28 48 (7) RS04b 1952 Beverton- (8) RS05b 1958 Holt 739 167 222 456 0.30 1.33 0.23 121 579 166 66 164 0.11 0.40 0.29 55 (h=0.7) 820 186 321 658 0.39 1.73 0.23 134 718 206 55 140 0.08 0.27 0.29 70 (9) RS06b 1963

Table 6: Percentage difference between estimates reported Table 5 above for the updated RS and for the 2018 RS in MARAM/IWS/DEC2018/Hake/P3. A negative value indicates that the estimates for the updated RS are lower than previously.

M. paradoxus M. capensis

푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푡표푡 퐵2017 퐵2017 퐵푀푆푌 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 푡표푡 퐵2017 퐵2017 퐵푀푆푌 퐾 퐵푀푆푌 퐵2017 퐵2017 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 MSY 퐾 퐵푀푆푌 퐵2017 퐵2017 푠푝 푠푝 푠푝 Central Stock /퐾 /퐵푀푆푌 /퐾 /퐾 /퐵푀푆푌 /퐾 Model name Year Recruit MSY

(0) Oct 2017 1958 Ricker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(1) RS01 1952 -10 -8 -16 -12 -7 -8 -1 -1 -8 -8 -9 -9 0 -1 1 -2

(2) RS02 1958 Ricker -8 -8 -16 -12 -8 -7 1 0 -6 -6 -6 -7 0 0 -1 0

(3) RS03 1963 -8 -8 -14 -10 -7 -6 -1 0 -6 -6 -6 -7 0 0 -1 0 -15 -16 -16 -9 -2 0 -5 1 -2 -5 -11 -13 -5 -7 -3 2 (4) RS04a 1952 Beverton- (5) RS05a 1958 Holt -17 -18 -18 -11 -2 0 -4 1 -60 -55 -97 -96 -93 -94 12 -53 (h=0.9) (6) RS06a 1963 -15 -14 -10 -6 4 6 -4 1 -62 -56 -98 -98 -96 -97 16 -51 875 963 795 187 -9 -18 13 -20 -4 -5 -9 -10 -7 -4 -2 1 (7) RS04b 1952 Beverton- (8) RS05b 1958 Holt 802 884 641 157 -17 -25 13 -22 -60 -58 -94 -93 -84 -85 2 -54 (h=0.7) (9) RS06b 1963 832 932 791 205 -5 -17 13 -19 -4 -5 -7 -8 -5 -2 -1 1

7.2.1.3 Management The fleet is defined as inshore (<110m depth) and offshore (>110m depth or >20NM offshore, whichever is greater). The inshore fleet is restricted to vessels less than 30m and is required to use lighter ground tackle. Long term fishing rights were introduced in 2005 for 15 years. There are 52 rights holders in the offshore fleet and 17 for the inshore fleet. Mesh size restrictions have been in place since 1975. For the offshore trawl fleet, the cod end mesh size must be >110mm (Hake Deep Sea Trawl Permit Conditions). For the inshore trawl fleet cod-end mesh must be > 90mm for hake- directed fishery and >75mm for sole directed fishery (Hake Inshore Trawl (Hake & Sole) Permit Conditions). In practice the industry and observers report that inshore vessels all use 110mm mesh cod-ends when fishing for hake, and 75mm mesh when fishing for sole. License conditions also define various other gear characteristics, such as footrope design, weight and size limitations on rollers, bobbins etc. Specifications are more stringent for the inshore vessels. Since late 70s the fishery has been managed through a Total Allowable Catch (TAC), implemented through company allocated quota. The TAC for both offshore and inshore hake peaked at 165,000t in 2000 and currently stands at 147,500t. Catches were close to TAC 1991-2011, and slightly below TAC in recent years. The TAC is based on abundances indices feeding into the OMP, which is selected from the results of simulated projections based on assessments. Regulation of the hake fishery cannot practically be done separately for the two hake species and catch allocations by species are integrated into a single TAC. The OMP formula for the TAC has been designed to protect the species most at possible risk, which to date has been M. paradoxus (see below).

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 25 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

The hake TAC is split between different fishing sectors according to a predetermined allocation key (DAFF, 2016a). A proportion of the hake TAC is allocated to the horse mackerel fishery as a bycatch, and the remaining directed catch of hake is allocated to the handline fishery (1.8%), longline fishery (6.5%), inshore trawl fishery (6.1790%) and the offshore trawl fishery (83.9%). A further 1.5% is allocated to subsistence fishers. Subsequent to the introduction of long-term fishing rights, vessel effort limitation measures were developed and agreed between the two trawling industry bodies working with Marine and Coastal Management (MCM, now DAFF). Vessel operators are allocated trawling days based on TAC allocation and vessel configuration (size and power). This allows for an adjustment of vessel effort annually or whenever a permit is renewed. These effort restrictions are not intended as a directed control of the legal catch, but rather as further security against illegal excess catches being made but not reported The management system is coordinated and implemented through an operational management procedure (OMP), which has response protocols and therefore works as a harvest control rule (HCR). Management objectives, risks and constraints are agreed upon, and a reference set of possible biological scenarios tested in model simulations. These are then used as the basis for management actions, specifically the setting of TAC. When originally set up in 1998 the objective of the OMP was BMSY within 10 years, and once achieved to maintain the stock at MSY. In recent years, the species-specific stock assessments have indicated that the West coast M. paradoxus stock was below its MSY levels, while M. capensis has been above MSY level since about 1980. As a result, the OMP became de facto a formal recovery plan for the M. paradoxus resource. This required fairly large initial cuts in TAC, then TAC stability over time until BMSY was achieved. Currently the M. paradoxus stock is estimated to be above its BMSY level. Under the Management Strategy for “hake” (Ross-Gillespie and D. S Butterworth, 2019), which currently refers to the combined species on both coasts, the maximum allowable annual increase in the hake TAC is 10%, and the maximum allowable annual decrease is 5%, unless the M. paradoxus average biomass index falls too low. Two further rules are included in Operational Management Procedure (OMP) 2018: i. An upper cap on the TAC is imposed, so that the TAC cannot exceed 160 000t; and ii. The TAC for 2019 and 2018 is fixed at 146 431t. Recent TAC and catch data are summarised in Table 7. A time series of catches of both hake species is shown in Figure 2. 7.2.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data The hake TAC is split between different fishing sectors according to a predetermined allocation key (DAFF, 2016a). A proportion of the hake TAC is set aside as a by-catch reserve in the horse mackerel-directed midwater trawl fishery, and the remaining direct catch of hake is allocated to the handline fishery (1.8433%), longline fishery (6.5510%), inshore trawl fishery (6.1790%) and the offshore trawl fishery (83.9268%). A further 1.500% is allocated to subsistence fishers. Table 7: Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

TAC Year 2018 Amount 146,431t

UoA share of TAC Year 2018 Amount 100%

Amount Inshore trawl 6.1790% UoA share of total TAC Year 2018 Offshore trawl 83.9268% Total 90.1058% Amount Year (most Inshore trawl Data for 2018 Total green weight catch by UoC 2018 recent) Offshore trawl still being Total compiled. Amount Year (second Inshore trawl 2,610t Total green weight catch by UoC 2017 most recent) Offshore trawl 117,170t Total 119,780t

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 26 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.2.3 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales 7.2.3.1 UoA 1: Merluccius paradoxus

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Stock status relative to recruitment impairment It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of a Guide above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is post recruitment would be impaired above the PRI. (PRI). Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The most updated evidence about stock configuration of M. paradoxus (Henriques et al., 2016) in the Benguela ecosystem indicates that the stock is shared between Namibia and South Africa. The extent of the linkage has not been quantified, and it is understood that genetic studies are being carried out which may provide a better understanding of the relationship between South African and Namibian M. paradoxus fleets. Therefore, the scoring is carried out taking into account the information available from both fisheries. It is important to stress that at the moment the stock assessment is not carried out in a coordinated way with shared data. The evidence used here to score the status are taken from the information available both from the separate South African and Namibian evaluations. This assessment approach is considered to be consistent with MSC Requirements for fish metapopulations with limited connectivity or partial isolation (MSC FCR v2.01, Table G2, Stock Structure B & C). The approach may need to be revised in response to new information about stock structure gathered at the site visit. According to the most recent estimates available from South Africa the entire range of estimates of 2018 OMP shows that the current 2017 M. paradoxus SSB is well above the PRI, estimated at the 20% of unexploited SSB (in accordance with CR 2.0 - GSA2.2.3.1 - SA2.2.3). In particular the median and 90% probability intervals for the equal weighting across the RS of SSB are always above the PRI. The Namibian assessment is carried out taking into consideration both species together. However, survey data from 2017 are available by species and in the case of M. paradoxus a large incoming cohort is present. Therefore, taking into consideration the available evidences from both estimates is possible to conclude that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI and SG 60, 80 and 100 are met. Potential information gaps related to the stock status of M. paradoxus will be further discussed during the site visit also taking into account the uncertainty in stock evaluation carried out for the fishery in Namibian waters.

Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of around a level consistent with certainty that the stock has b Guide MSY. been fluctuating around a post level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Yes No

Rationale

The entire range of estimates of 2018 OMP carried out by South Africa shows that the current 2017 M. paradoxus SSB is comprised between 65 to 321 kt, which is from 1.1 to 1.9 times of the spawning biomass at MSY (42-186 kt). According to Figure 6 this level of biomass is higher than BMSY since 2000.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 27 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

The assessment carried out in Namibia evaluated the status of Merluccius spp. to be 50% below BMSY. However, according to the information of stock distribution the majority of the stock is present in South Africa, which has both a stronger information base and a more robust assessment model. Given that the degree of connectivity between South Africa and Namibia is uncertain (see SIa above), it seems to be appropriate to take into consideration mainly the outcomes of South African estimate and it is possible to conclude that the stock is at BMSY or fluctuating around it. Therefore, SG80 is met. Due to the wide variability in SSB estimation of South Africa and the uncertainty of the relationship with and the state observed for Merluccius spp. in the Namibian assessment, it is not possible to conclude that there is a “high degree of certainty” that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY and SG 100 is not met. Potential information gaps related to the stock status of M. paradoxus will be further discussed during the site visit.

References Ross-Gillespie and D. S Butterworth, 2019. Updated specifications, conditioning results and projections for the Hake OMP2018 Reference Set models. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG-DEM/03. 49pp.

Stock status relative to reference points Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point 20% of B0 ≈ 80 kt ≈ 7 used in scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa)

Reference point BMSY. 42-186 kt 1.11-1.86 used in scoring stock relative to MSY (SIb) Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 28 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Harvest strategy design The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of the responsive to the state of the management objectives stock and the elements of the stock and is designed to a Guide reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. harvest strategy work achieve stock management post together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 stock management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Taking into consideration that the stock is considered to be shared to some extent with Namibia, the harvest strategy employed in both South African and Namibia are considered here. As noted previously, this scoring is dependent on confirmation of the degree to which South African and Namibian M. paradoxus are connected, which will determine the assessment approach that is required by the MSC FCR (see PI1.1.1 SIb above). The scoring approach set out here may therefore need to be altered in response to information provided at the site visit about stock connectivity and isolation. In South Africa a harvest strategy has been established based upon the stock assessment as integrated through the Operational Management Procedure (OMP). This aims to balance the returns to the fishery (catch) against the perceived risks to the stock (of fishing). The rules for specifying the TAC are fully specified and are based upon management strategy evaluations under various hypotheses relating to M. paradoxus productivity, uncertainty in data and in the assessments. Appropriate mechanisms are utilised to contain harvest as and when required to maintain, or allow the hake stock to be maintained at, or return to, target levels. Essentially, the OMP is the decision rule used to establish the TAC, and its objectives of the OMP include reference points and management targets within the design of the rules. Thus, the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the (explicit or implicit) target and limit reference points. The Namibian Management Plan for the Hake Fishery (May 2014- April 2018; currently in review) sets out the harvest strategy including: data collection, evaluation of both stocks, TACs setting, areas closed to protect juveniles, minimum mesh size of 100mm, limited entry to the fishery and individual vessel quotas. The harvest control rule is in operation that sets a TAC which corresponds to 80% of the mean replacement yield for both stock together in order to promote biomass increase and is designed to achieve BMSY. As the replacement yield is recalculated at each assessment it will adjust the TAC accordingly to ensure that it is set a value that promotes biomass recovery and is therefore designed to be responsive to the state of the stock. The harvest strategies implemented both by Namibia and South Africa are clearly responsive to the status of the stocks. Moreover, both South African measures to manage hake stocks and Namibian Management Plan for Hake Fishery can be considered as elements of a broad harvest strategy work together towards achieving MSY stock management objectives as confirmed by the status of M. paradoxus evaluated by South Africa. This meets SG 60 and 80. However, considering that the elements of the harvest strategy are not implemented in coordination by the two countries is not possible to conclude that the harvest strategy is formally designed to achieve MSY objective for M. paradoxus as shared stock. Therefore, SG 100 is not met. Potential information gaps related to the HS design for M. paradoxus will be further discussed during the site visit. b Harvest strategy evaluation

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 29 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence Guide argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is Post achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

In South Africa, the performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated for both stocks. The OMP has been thoroughly tested for robustness against a wide range of uncertainties in the assessment and management process, both at the time of revision of the OMP (every 4 years) and annually or more frequently as is considered necessary in light of new information. The rules for specifying the TAC are based upon management strategy evaluations under various hypotheses relating to M. paradoxus productivity, uncertainty in data and in the assessments. In Namibia the harvest strategy is based on an approach used in South Africa about 15 years ago (e.g. Rademayer, 2003). The HCR now used in Namibia is expected to promote biomass increase because the TAC is set at a level below the replacement yield (RY). Taking into account the evaluations of both countries, the status of M. paradoxus in South Africa and Merluccius spp. in Namibia is improving. Therefore, even if the harvest strategy is not fully tested (e.g. it is not tested taking into account that M. paradoxus is a shared stock) there is evidence that it is achieving its management objectives, hence SG 60 and SG80 are met.. However, having in mind that the TAC is not set by single species both in South Africa and Namibia but cumulative for both it is not possible to conclude that HS is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain M. paradoxus stock at target levels and the HS is not fully evaluated in the case of a local overexploitation of M. paradoxus by one of the two fleets. Therefore, SG 100 is not met. Potential information gaps related to the HS evaluation will be further discussed during the site visit. c Harvest strategy monitoring

Monitoring is in place that is Guide expected to determine post whether the harvest strategy is working.

Met? Yes

Rationale

In South Africa the OMP requires that monitoring and re-evaluation are in place to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. These include an annual review of population and fishery indicators, and any other relevant data or information on the population, fishery and ecosystem, with which a routine updated assessment is conducted. In Namibia monitoring is in place on the catches and abundance at sea respectively monitored with an observer programme and with research vessel surveys. Such data are used in regular stock assessments to determine the status of the stocks relative to BMSY. Taking into consideration such evidences both from South Africa and Namibia is possible to conclude that monitoring is in place to determine whether the harvest strategy is working and SG60 is met.

Harvest strategy review The harvest strategy is d Guide periodically reviewed and post improved as necessary. Met? Yes

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 30 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

In South Africa, the harvest strategy, its information and modelling basis, and its utility in sustainably managing the M. paradoxus exploitation is reviewed regularly by an international review panel. In Namibia, the current Management Plan expired in April 2018. It was due to be reviewed starting in May 2017. The current harvest rule of 80% RY was reviewed during 2018 to identify rebuilding targets (Ministry of fisheries and marine resources, 2018). Therefore, the harvest strategies of each countries are periodically reviewed and improved meeting SG 100.

Shark finning It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of e Guide not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? NA NA NA The target species is not a shark, so this SI is not relevant.

Review of alternative measures There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative f Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. catch of the target stock and catch of the target stock, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Both in South Africa and Namibia unwanted catches of M. paradoxus are considered negligible (see Ross-Gillespie and Butterworth, 2019 and Wilhelm et al., 2015). However, this aspect will be further discussed during the site visit.

References Ross-Gillespie and D. S Butterworth, 2019. Updated specifications, conditioning results and projections for the Hake OMP2018 Reference Set models. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG-DEM/03. 49pp. Wilhelm, M.R., Kirchner, C.H., Roux, J.-P., Jarre, A., Iitembu, J.A., Kathena, J.N. and Kainge, P. 2015. Biology and fisheries of the shallow-water hake (Merluccius capensis) and the deep-water hake (M. paradoxus) in Namibia. Chapter 3 In: Hakes: biology and exploitation, pp 70-100. Ed. by H. Arancibia. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester, UK. DOI: 10.1002/9781118568262.ch3

Draft scoring range > 80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 31 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 HCRs design and application Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced as at or above a target level exploitation rate as the point the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or a Guide of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate post (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account the level consistent with (or ecological role of the stock, above) MSY, or for key LTL most of the time. species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

Taking into consideration that the stock is considered to be shared to some extent with Namibia, the harvest control rules employed in both South Africa and Namibia are considered here. As noted previously, this scoring is dependent on confirmation of the degree to which South African and Namibian M. paradoxus are connected, which will determine the assessment approach that is required by the MSC FCR (see PI1.1.1 SIb above). The scoring approach set out here may therefore need to be altered in response to information provided at the site visit about stock connectivity and isolation.

In South Africa well defined harvest control rules are established within the OMP both for M. capensis and M. paradoxus. These are understood and agreed by scientists, the industry and managers. Essentially, the OMP is the decision rule used to establish a TAC against the objectives that include implicitly reference points and management targets. These rules have been thoroughly tested for robustness against a wide range of uncertainties in the assessment and management process. Appropriate mechanisms are utilised to contain harvest as and when required to maintain, or allow the target stocks to return to, productive levels. According to the projections presented by Ross-Gillespie and D. S Butterworth, 2019. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG-DEM/03 the HCRs are expected to keep the stocks fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY. In Namibia, the HCR is based on setting a catch limit (TAC) that allows the mean biomass of both species to increase in the projected five years. This is done by calculating the catch that would result in the mean biomass being replaced (i.e. future biomass is the same as current biomass) and then setting a catch at 80% of this value. The rule is well defined and summarised mathematically as (Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, 2017): 푦−4

푇퐴퐶푦 = 0.8 ∑ 푅푌푦/5 푦 Where RY is the replacement yield. Since the TAC calculation is updated at annual assessments it will respond to the state of the stock and reduce in response to declining biomass. Hence it will reduce exploitation rate as the PRI is approached. Although it relates to both stocks together rather than evaluated the stocks individually, this is precautionary for two reasons: i) it applies mainly to M .paradoxus (which makes up 75% of the landings), where the South African part of the stock is in good condition (>BMSY); and ii) the biomass of M .capensis is higher than that of M. paradoxus although the catches are lower. Furthermore, trends in the two stocks individually, including trends in recruitment, are evaluated annual via the trawl survey. The current HCR is expected to result in an increase in the biomass to at least MSY, hence SG80 is met. Considering the two sets of measures implemented separately in South Africa and Namibia it is possible to conclude that they constitute generally understood HCRs in place and they are going to reduce the exploitation rate as a decreasing trend of biomass is observed. Therefore SG 60 is met.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 32 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

However, taking into account the fact that both HCRs are setting a TAC for both species together and they are based on stock assessments that are not considering M. paradoxus as shared stocks is not possible to conclude they are well defined, and SG 80 is not met.. During the site visit the team will be keen to determine whether the HCRs are formally defined considering the M. paradoxus as shared stock.

HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a robust to the main wide range of uncertainties b Guide uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is post evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.

Met? No No

Rationale

In both HCRs, the uncertainty related to the stock configuration as well as the potential impact of Namibian/South African fisheries on M. paradoxus are not considered. Therefore, even if sensitivity runs are routinely performed and reported in the assessment of Namibia and in South Africa the rules for specifying the TAC are based upon management strategy evaluations under various hypotheses of M. capensis and M. paradoxus productivity, the HCRs are not robustly defined in term of uncertainty of stock configuration and catches from each country and SG 80 is not met. By default, SG 60 is met. Potential information gaps related to the HCRs robustness to uncertainty of M. paradoxus will be further discussed during the site visit.

HCRs evaluation There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows tools used or available to indicates that the tools in use that the tools in use are c Guide implement HCRs are are appropriate and effective effective in achieving the post appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

In South Africa, management tools have been specified to implement decisions related to input and/or output controls, which are generic for the two species although output controls are addressed within the OMP. The primary management tool is the output control of a single TAC and the catches have been always below the TAC. Input controls in the form of sea day limits linked to expected catch rates and the TAC have been applied (one objective is having a high CPUE) and are functioning as an effective effort control. In Namibia, TACs have generally been set in line with scientific advice. Landings between 1990 and 2007 have been below the TAC. In addition to catch controls, there is restricted entry to the fishery which limits fishing effort and observers on vessels ensure compliance. From both South Africa and Namibian evaluations of the stock status is possible to observe that these tools are likely to be effective in achieving relevant management objectives considering the increasing trend of biomass. Therefore SG 60 and 80 are met. However, the recovery of the biomass in the Namibian assessment has been slow and the fact that TACs have not always been set in line with advice means that SG100 is not met. Potential information gaps related to the HCRs evaluation of both stocks will be further discussed during the site visit.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 33 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

References Ross-Gillespie and D. S Butterworth, 2019. Updated specifications, conditioning results and projections for the Hake OMP2018 Reference Set models. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG-DEM/03. 49pp.

Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 34 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Range of information Some relevant information related Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range to stock structure, stock information related to stock of information (on stock productivity and fleet composition structure, stock structure, stock is available to support the harvest productivity, fleet productivity, fleet strategy. composition and other data composition, stock A Guide are available to support the abundance, UoA removals harvest strategy. and other information such post as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Taking into consideration that the stock is considered to be shared to some extent with Namibia, the range of information available in both South Africa and Namibia are considered here.

In South Africa the two species of hake in the catch are recorded separately by observers (examination of gill and otolith morphology and fin ray and vertebrae counts) and in surveys, then extrapolated to attain total commercial catches classified by depth (mainly) and longshore distribution. This has provided a basis for separating historically aggregated catches into the two species, which has allowed single-species assessments to be conducted with a reasonable degree of robustness. The distribution of M. paradoxus is well established. As well as the life history of M. paradoxus, which is relatively well known and is clearly documented and understood including key behaviour and ecological interactions. The basic population parameters are known and reported, including spawning areas, age and growth, mortality, fecundity, early development and larval distributions. In Namibia, details of data collected, and sampling intensity are given in Ministry Of Fisheries And Marine Resources (2017). Both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent indices of abundance are available. Surveys are conducted as “swept area”; and are calibrated against a standard research vessel. General information on fecundity is available. Growth rates have been estimated and are re-evaluated periodically. The depth distribution of the two species is collected from surveys. There is knowledge of biological and physical factors affecting distribution, survival and year class strength (including natural mortality). Landings and catches are recorded in logbooks and as part of effort management regime, however information on discards and incidental mortality is limited. Fishing methods, gear types and size and composition of fleet are all recorded and regulated through the permitting process. Observers carry out in situ reports on gear type deployed. All fishing methods and gear types employed in the fishery are therefore known. Comprehensive knowledge is recorded and regularly updated, on the size and composition of the fleets. For Cape hake (both species combined) any trans-boundary issues are partially addressed through the separate South African and Namibian assessments, but this may not capture all possible migration. Levels of IUU fishing are estimated to be negligible. A comprehensive range of information is therefore available from both countries exploiting the stock of M. paradoxus. Therefore SG 60, 80 and 100 are met. Potential information gaps related to the information of both stocks will be further discussed during the site visit also taking into account the uncertainty in stock configurations and the fishery in Namibian waters.

b Monitoring

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 35 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required removals are monitored and at removals are regularly by the harvest control rule least one indicator is available monitored at a level of is monitored with high and monitored with sufficient accuracy and coverage frequency and a high frequency to support the harvest consistent with the degree of certainty, and Guide control rule. harvest control rule, and there is a good post one or more indicators understanding of inherent are available and uncertainties in the monitored with sufficient information [data] and the frequency to support the robustness of assessment harvest control rule. and management to this uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

In South Africa, both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent indices of abundance are available. The fishery- dependent index is generated from CPUE data that undergoes extensive standardisation encompassing area, season, vessel power factors, by-catch factors and the incidence and prevalence of trawl “liners” used to avoid mesh size restrictions in the late 1970s to early 1980s. Fishery-independent indices of abundance are obtained from “swept area” surveys and are used in the assessments. This allows one to compute the relative efficiency (q) of the surveys, which varies considerably especially in view of changes in trawl gear and vessel. In Namibia, both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent indices of abundance are available. Surveys are conducted as “swept area”; they are used in the assessments as an index of abundance. Where fishery independent surveys are used (for juveniles and/or adults) the design of the survey(s) is statistically rigorous and robust. Species are also split, and biomass estimates for each given. Finally, in both countries, data are collected annually to update assessments which are then used in the HCR to provide annual TAC advice, hence SG80 is met. However, taking into consideration that there is not a good enough understanding of uncertainties in the data and the robustness of assessment and management to such uncertainties, mainly related with the stock configuration of M. paradoxus, SG100 is not met. Potential information gaps related to the monitoring of both stocks will be further discussed during the site visit.

Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information c on all other fishery post removals from the stock.

Met? Yes

Rationale

In both countries, landings and catches are accurately recorded in logbooks, IUU removals are negligible and can be verified by vessel monitoring systems, compliance vessels and aircraft. Removals from other fisheries are recorded. Therefore, the SG80 requirements are met.

References Ross-Gillespie and D. S Butterworth, 2019. Updated specifications, conditioning results and projections for the Hake OMP2018 Reference Set models. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG-DEM/03. 49pp.

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 36 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration The assessment is The assessment takes into appropriate for the stock and account the major features Guide a for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the post species and the nature of the UoA. Met? No No

Rationale

In South Africa the assessment model utilized for M. capensis is also employed for M. paradoxus. Therefore, it is not fully reported here. However, taking into consideration that the stock is considered to be shared with Namibian fleets the assessment model carried out in Namibia is also considered to score 1.2.4. In South Africa, the assessment model used is a sex-disaggregated Age-Structured Production Model (ASPM), which is fitted directly to age-length keys (ALKs) and length frequency distributions of M. paradoxus. The general specifications of the overall model are set out together details of data and parameterisation in Appendix A of MARAM/IWS/2018/Hake/P1rev. The ASPM model has been extensively reviewed both in the context of this hake application and in stocks around the world. While all models are approximations, the ASPM /OMP evaluation approach appears to capture all significant features of the M. paradoxus biology, the nature of the fishery and the data at hand. In Namibia, assessment uses the same age-based model (ASPM), that makes use of survey data, catch at age data and commercial CPUE (Kirchner et al 2012) considering both species together. The harvest control rule forms part of the assessment procedure and automatically calculates BMSY and the replacement yield as well as the catch corresponding to the HCR. As applied, the model fits a Beverton-Holt stock recruitment model within the assessment from which MSY is estimated and projections made. Taking into consideration that the stock is deemed to be shared both models are not appropriate to estimate the status of M. paradoxus and the relative HCRs. Therefore, SG 80 is not met. Potential information gaps will be further discussed during the site visit.

Assessment approach The assessment estimates The assessment estimates stock status relative to stock status relative to Guide b generic reference points reference points that are post appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated. Met? Yes No

Rationale

In both assessment methods stock status is expressed relative to MSY reference points and with associated CVs (measures of precision). The assessment includes the consequences of current harvest strategies, forecasts future consequences of these and evaluates stock trajectories under decision rules. Therefore SG 60 is met However, as outlined before in 1.2.4a the methodology applied also to estimate reference points is not appropriate due to the lack of data from foreign fleets (South Africa or Namibia). Therefore SG 80 is not met.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 37 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Potential information gaps related to the assessment approach will be further discussed during the site visit.

Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into major sources of uncertainty. uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is c Guide evaluating stock status Post relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Both assessment models have been evaluated for significant uncertainties and functional relationships by examining likelihood, sensitivity analyses (relative to output management quantities), assumptions of basic model structure and the significance of timing of fishing events. While some of these uncertainties are not yet fully understood, in many cases the direction of the bias, the range of the variance and the significance to management are reasonably well- known. Major sources of uncertainty considered are sampling error, model structure and stock productivity, hence SG60 is met. The assessments take into account sampling error in the data. Sensitivity runs on the model are also conducted that explore alternate assumptions about natural mortality, survey catchability, survey selectivity and recruitment variability, hence SG80 is met. The assessment model can produce posterior error distributions of critical quantities using MCMC. The TAC is taken as the mean of the posterior distribution (Rademeyer, 2004), hence SG100 is met since the probability distribution of the control variable is considered. Therefore SG 80 is met. The assessments make a probabilistic evaluation of the stock status relative to the reference points (MSY) and projects these into the future over appropriate timescales. Harvest strategy rules are stochastically evaluated. Therefore SG 100 is met. Potential information gaps will be further discussed during the site visit.

Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be Guide robust. Alternative d post hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Yes

Rationale

In both South Africa and Namibia, the harvest strategy, its information and modelling basis, and its utility in sustainably managing the cape hake fishery is reviewed regularly, with a view to ensuring that the most robust basis for the OMP is being used. New work reflecting improvements to the assessment has already been carried out as part of the redevelopment of the OMP in 2018. In the Namibia evaluation, alternative modelling approach using a state space model is reported in Kathena et al (2016). This gives comparable results to the ASPM model used as the main assessment and examines assessments that separate the two species, hence SG100 is met. Potential information gaps related to the evaluation of the assessment approach will be further discussed during the site visit.

Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been e status is subject to peer internally and externally post review. peer reviewed. Met? No No

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 38 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Rationale

In South Africa, the harvest strategy, its information and modelling basis, and its utility in sustainably managing the cape hake fishery is reviewed regularly. The most recent review was conducted at the International Workshop (IWS) held in 2018, from which the panel of international peer reviewers recommended a number of improvements on which new assessment work has already been carried out successfully to recheck that the OMP will perform satisfactorily. Differently in Namibia, the assessments are conducted in house by NatMIRC and are not subject to review. There are plans to conduct the assessment within BCC and this would include joint assessments with South Africa and would be expected to include a review process. However, at present SG80 is not met.

References Rademeyer, R.A., Butterworth, D.S. & Ross-Gillespie A.R., 2018. Specification of the South African Hake 2018 Reference Case Assessment. MARAM/IWS/2018/Hake/P1rev. 44pp. Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 39 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.2.3.2 UoA2: Merluccius capensis

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Stock status relative to recruitment impairment It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of a Guide above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is post recruitment would be impaired above the PRI. (PRI). Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The best estimates of the current 2017 M. capensis SSB is 186 kt, which is about 68% of the initial (unexploited) SSB. According to CR 2.0 - GSA2.2.3.1 - SA2.2.3, the PRI can be estimated as 20% of unexploited SSB. This meets SG60 and 80. However, taking into account the confidence intervals of the SSB estimation as well as the uncertainty in the models is not possible to conclude that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI and SG 100 is not met. Potential information gaps related to the stock status of M. capensis will be further discussed during the site visit.

Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of around a level consistent with certainty that the stock has b Guide MSY. been fluctuating around a post level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Yes No

Rationale

The best estimates of the current (2017) M. capensis SSB is 186 kt, which is more 2 times the spawning biomass at MSY (81 kt). According to figure 6 this level of biomass is higher than BMSY since 2000. Therefore, SG80 is met. However, taking into account the uncertainty related to the choice of stock-recruitment relationship model, it is not possible to conclude that there is a high degree of certainty that the biomass level is fluctuating around BMSY. Therefore, SG 100 is not met. Potential information gaps related to the stock status of M. capensis will be further discussed during the site visit.

References Ross-Gillespie and D. S Butterworth, 2019. Updated specifications, conditioning results and projections for the Hake OMP2018 Reference Set models. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG-DEM/03. 49pp. Stock status relative to reference points Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point 20% of B0 54.4 kt 3.5 used in scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa)

Reference point BMSY. 81 kt 2.29 used in scoring

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 40 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

stock relative to MSY (SIb)

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 41 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Harvest strategy design The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of the responsive to the state of the management objectives stock and the elements of the stock and is designed to a Guide reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. harvest strategy work achieve stock management post together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 stock management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

A harvest strategy has been established based upon the stock assessment as integrated through the OMP. This aims to balance the returns to the fishery (catch) against the perceived risks to the stock (of fishing). The rules for specifying the TAC are fully specified and are based upon management strategy evaluations under various hypotheses relating to M. capensis productivity, uncertainty in data and in the assessments. Appropriate mechanisms are utilised to contain harvest as and when required to maintain, or allow the hake stock to be maintained at, or return to, target levels. Essentially, the OMP is the decision rule used to establish the TAC, and its objectives of the OMP include reference points and management targets within the design of the rules. Thus, the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the (explicit or implicit) target and limit reference points. Therefore SG 60, 80 and 100 are met. Potential information gaps related to the HS design for M. capensis will be further discussed during the site visit also taking into account the uncertainty in stock configurations and the fishery in Namibian waters mainly related to M. paradoxus.

Harvest strategy evaluation The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence b Guide argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is Post achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated. The OMP has been thoroughly tested for robustness against a wide range of uncertainties in the assessment and management process, both at the time of revision of the OMP (every 4 years) and annually or more frequently as is considered necessary in light of new information. The rules for specifying the TAC are based upon management strategy evaluations under various hypotheses relating to M. capensis productivity, uncertainty in data and in the assessments. Therefore SG 60 and 80 are met. The results of the stock assessments show that the harvest strategy it is achieving its objectives, including being clearly able to maintain the M. capensis stock at the target level (>BMSY, though the fishery itself aims to maximise CPUE and minimise fishing time). The latest assessment suggests that M. capensis and M. paradoxus stocks are in line with BMSY. However taking into account the uncertainty in the assessment outputs of M. capensis and the potential issues related with the stock configuration of M. paradoxus (potentially shared with Namibian fisheries) and

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 42 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

having in mind that the TAC is not set by single species but cumulative for both it is not possible to conclude that HS is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain M. capensis stock at target levels and the HS is not fully evaluated in the case of a local overexploitation of M. paradoxus by Namibian fleets. Therefore, SG 100 is not met. Potential information gaps related to the HS evaluation of both stocks will be further discussed during the site visit also taking into account the uncertainty in stock configurations and the fishery in Namibian waters. c Harvest strategy monitoring

Monitoring is in place that is Guide expected to determine post whether the harvest strategy is working.

Met? Yes

Rationale

The OMP requires that monitoring and re-evaluation are in place to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. These include an annual review of population and fishery indicators, and any other relevant data or information on the population, fishery and ecosystem, with which a routine updated assessment is conducted (the core reference set models, used in the OMP testing, refitted to take a further year’s data into account). Every two years an in-depth stock assessment (more intensive than the annual process above) is conducted, with a range of sensitivity tests. In this sense, the OMP development process is an ex ante test of the strategy relative to uncertainties. Therefore, SG 60 is met. Potential information gaps related to the HS monitoring of M. capensis stock will be further discussed during the site visit.

Harvest strategy review

d Guide The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and post improved as necessary. Met? Yes

Rationale

The harvest strategy, its information and modelling basis, and its utility in sustainably managing the M. capensis exploitation is reviewed regularly. The 2018 Reference Set of Operating Models used for testing OMP2018 was not fully endorsed by the Panel for the 2018 International Stock Assessment workshop. The scientists involved in the OMP provided updated RS that take account of the recommendations made by the Panel to address the reasons why they did not fully endorse these OMs, and projected them forward under the rules of OMP2018, showing that satisfactory performance was still obtained. Potential information gaps related to the HS review of M. capensis stock will be further discussed during the site visit.

Shark finning It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of e Guide not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

The target species is not a shark, so this SI is not considered to be relevant. f Review of alternative measures

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 43 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. catch of the target stock and catch of the target stock, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Discards of Projected them forward under the rules of OMP2018, showing that satisfactory performance was still obtained are negligible in the UoA (see Ross-Gillespie and Butterworth, 2019). However, this aspect will be further discussed during the site visit.

References Ross-Gillespie and D. S Butterworth, 2019. Updated specifications, conditioning results and projections for the Hake OMP2018 Reference Set models. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG-DEM/03. 49pp. Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 44 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 HCRs design and application Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced as at or above a target level exploitation rate as the point the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or a Guide of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate post (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account the level consistent with (or ecological role of the stock, above) MSY, or for key LTL most of the time. species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Well defined harvest control rules are established within the OMP both for M. capensis and M. paradoxus. These are understood and agreed by scientists, the industry and managers. Essentially, the OMP is the decision rule used to establish a TAC against the objectives that include implicitly reference points and management targets. These rules have been thoroughly tested for robustness against a wide range of uncertainties in the assessment and management process. Appropriate mechanisms are utilised to contain harvest as and when required to maintain, or allow the target stocks to return to, productive levels. Therefore, SG 60 is met. The TACs set following the 2018 OMP aimed to restrict exploitation to give a high probability of increases in biomass from 2019-2040, and the most recent assessments have shown that the OMP’s spawning biomass recovery trajectory has been achieved for both stocks. Therefore SG 80 is met. According to the projections presented by Ross-Gillespie and D. S Butterworth, 2019. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG- DEM/03 the HCRs are expected to keep the stocks fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY. Therefore SG 100 is met. Potential information gaps related to the HCRs design and application for both stocks will be further discussed during the site visit, also considering the impact of M. paradoxus shared between Namibia and South Africa. At the time of drafting this report a new OMP has been prepared, and a TAC for 2019 adopted by the management authority in line with the recommendation provided by this OMP. This new OMP has been revised to take account of the most recent changes to the stock assessment which resulted in a change in the perception of both hake species’ biomass and hence the most appropriate management approach. During the site visit the team will be keen to determine whether this new OMP has been formally adopted by the management agency and is thus “in place” as required by this SI at the SG60, 80 and 100 level.

HCRs robustness to uncertainty The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a robust to the main wide range of uncertainties b Guide uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is post evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 45 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

The rules for specifying the TAC are based upon management strategy evaluations under various hypotheses relating to M. capensis and M. paradoxus productivity, uncertainty in current and future data and uncertainty in controlling exploitation appropriately for the two hake species through use of a TAC that is aggregated for both species. However, though a single TAC might give rise to a mismatch in its effect on the two species, the OMP evaluates the impact of that possibility and uncertainty of management implementation on the individual hake species. Therefore SG 80 is met. The uncertainty related to the stock configuration of M. capensis, as well as the potential impact of Namibian fisheries on M. paradoxus are not considered. Therefore SG 100 is not met. Potential information gaps related to the HCRs robustness to uncertainty of both stocks will be further discussed during the site visit also taking into account the uncertainty in stock configurations and the fishery in Namibian waters.

HCRs evaluation There is some evidence that Available evidence Evidence clearly shows tools used or available to indicates that the tools in use that the tools in use are c Guide implement HCRs are are appropriate and effective effective in achieving the post appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Management tools have been specified to implement decisions related to input and/or output controls, which are generic for the two species although output controls are addressed within the OMP. The primary management tool is the output control of a single TAC. Input controls in the form of sea day limits linked to expected catch rates and the TAC have been applied (one objective is having a high CPUE) and are functioning as an effective effort control. Evidence exists to show clearly that these tools are likely to be effective in achieving relevant management objectives through continuing monitoring against the OMP objectives. Therefore SG 60 and 80 are met. Note that practicalities limit management’s ability to establish separate TAC’s for the two hake species and thus, the TAC is aggregated for both species. Using a single TAC might give rise to a mismatch between its effect on the two species. However, the OMP evaluates the impact of that and uncertainty of management implementation on the individual hake species. The OMP also includes provisions to check if species-specific targets are being met together with remedial processes to be followed if they are not. Therefore SG 100 is met. Potential information gaps related to the HCRs evaluation of both stocks will be further discussed during the site visit.

References Ross-Gillespie and D. S Butterworth, 2019. Updated specifications, conditioning results and projections for the Hake OMP2018 Reference Set models. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG-DEM/03. 49pp. Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 46 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Range of information Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity, composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock A Guide support the harvest strategy. data are available to support abundance, UoA removals the harvest strategy. and other information such as post environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Cape hake are unlikely to be confused with other species, but the two species are not easily discriminated at sea, and the logistics of recording catch data have resulted in historical landings data that are aggregated over the two species, i.e. the individual species have not been recorded separately. More recently, the two species are recorded separately by observers (examination of gill and otolith morphology and fin ray and vertebrae counts) and in surveys, then extrapolated to attain total commercial catches classified by depth (mainly) and longshore distribution. This has provided a basis for separating historically aggregated catches into the two species, which has allowed single- species assessments to be conducted with a reasonable degree of robustness. The distribution of M. capensis is well established. The management implications of incomplete information on transboundary movements are addressed to some extent by joint programs (BENEFIT), in which, comparable assessment methods are used, and similar management benchmarks are employed. The life history of M. capensis is relatively well known and is clearly documented and understood including key behaviour and ecological interactions. The basic population parameters are known and reported, including spawning areas, age and growth, mortality, fecundity, early development and larval distributions. Information on fecundity is used in the assessments, which assume that individual fecundity at age is proportional to weight at age after the age of maturity. This is a standard assumption in assessments. Accordingly, estimates of reproductive capacity are based on growth rates, which have been estimated within the assessments and are re- evaluated from time to time. Important uncertainties still exist in terms of temporal changes and sex specific growth, and the reliance of ageing on a single trained otolith reader who is not consistent throughout the time-series (lack of validation), but the impacts of these uncertainties on the assessments are relatively well known and have limited impact on anticipated OMP performance. M. capensis behaviour is relatively well understood and hake cannibalism and inter-species predation have been modelled. Fishing methods, gear types and size and composition of fleet are recorded and regulated through licensing procedures. Observers carry out in situ reports on gear type deployed, and all fishing methods and gear types employed in the fishery are therefore known. Selectivity at size by gear (“partial F’s”: the fishing mortality rate at age relative to the maximum fishing mortality rate for an age) is estimated within the assessment. For M. capensis, all catches are recorded and used in the stock assessment. Levels of IUU fishing are estimated to be negligible, but with an element of uncertainty given the increase of rights holders in the fishery. Other fisheries in the area include the hake-directed handline and longline fisheries which collectively account for around 10% of the TAC. A sole- directed fishery in the inshore sector operates with a joint quota (sole/hake) system, while hake may be taken in the mid-water trawl fishery in which hake bycatch is severely limited (<2% bycatch allowed) and all boats carry permanent observers. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that a comprehensive range of information, including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. This information meets the SG60, 80 and 100

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 47 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

requirements. Potential information gaps related to the information of both stocks will be further discussed during the site visit.

Monitoring Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored with accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree b Guide sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of post rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in the available and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Recruitment indices and female spawning stock biomass (fSSB) time series are estimated within the stock assessment models for both species. Enough years of data are available to provide an estimate of the relationship between stock and recruitment. Though there is lack of understanding on causes and extent of the variability in recruitment, parameter estimates are adequate for developing biological reference points as pertinent to the OMP management context. Nevertheless, estimates of recruitment obtained from assessments are unstable until information on the cohort is accumulated over time. As a consequence, good and bad year classes are not detected until they have already been exploited for several years, which imposes the need for precautionary strategies. Both fishery-dependent and fishery-independent indices of abundance are available. The fishery-dependent index is generated from CPUE data that undergoes extensive standardisation encompassing area, season, vessel power factors, by-catch factors and the incidence and prevalence of trawl “liners” used to avoid mesh size restrictions in the late 1970s to early 1980s. The mechanisms by which these are incorporated into the standardisation have been well debated with industry. Note that CPUE data prior to 1988 is aggregated over species, whereas, and dis- aggregated by species subsequently. Fishery-independent indices of abundance are obtained from “swept area” surveys and are used in the assessments. This allows one to compute the relative efficiency (q) of the surveys, which varies considerably especially in view of changes in trawl gear and vessel. Though the fishery-independent and fishery-dependent indices do not show completely consistent patterns and trends (the high variability in the survey indices limits discrimination), the indices are assumed to be proportionally related to abundance/density of the stock with sufficient time series to allow trends in abundance to be understood clearly. Where fishery independent surveys are used (for juveniles and/or adults) the design of the survey(s) is statistically rigorous and robust, indices are not inconsistent and there is evidence that they are assumed to be proportional to the stock size. There is knowledge of biological and physical factors affecting distribution. Most information is sufficient and robust for use in the stock assessment process. The structure of the assessment models used and the OMP have been developed based upon relevant biological/ecological distributions and uncertainties. The information available for the fishery and the monitoring of fishery removals meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for this SI. Potential information gaps related to the monitoring of both stocks will be further discussed during the site visit, also taking into account the uncertainty in stock configuration and the fishery in Namibian waters.

Comprehensiveness of information

c Guide There is good information on all other fishery removals post from the stock.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 48 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Met? Yes

Rationale

Landings and catches are accurately recorded in logbooks and as part of effort management regime. M.capensis discards and other mortality (including juveniles) are monitored through the observer programme and reliably estimated in the stock assessment. While observer coverage is partial (~15-20%), discarding and incidental mortality of M. capensis is quite limited. No other significant sources of human-induced mortality are identified (IUU fishing is reliably estimated to be negligible). Therefore, the SG80 requirements are met. Potential information gaps related to the comprehensiveness of information of both stocks will be further discussed during the site visit also taking into account the uncertainty in stock configurations and the fishery in Namibian waters.

References Ross-Gillespie and D. S Butterworth, 2019. Updated specifications, conditioning results and projections for the Hake OMP2018 Reference Set models. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG-DEM/03. 49pp. Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 49 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration The assessment is The assessment takes into appropriate for the stock and account the major features Guide a for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the post species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The assessment model used is a sex-disaggregated Age-Structured Production Model (ASPM), which is fitted directly to age-length keys (ALKs) and length frequency distributions. The model assesses the two hake species as two independent stocks and is fitted to species-disaggregated data as well as species-combined data. The general specifications of the overall model are set out together details of data and parameterisation in Appendix A of MARAM/IWS/2018/Hake/P1rev. The ASPM model has been extensively reviewed both in the context of this hake application and in stocks around the world. While all models are approximations, the ASPM /OMP evaluation approach appears to capture all significant features of the M. capensis biology, the nature of the fishery and the data at hand. Therefore SG 80 and 100 are met. Potential information gaps will be further discussed during the site visit.

Assessment approach The assessment estimates The assessment estimates stock status relative to stock status relative to Guide b generic reference points reference points that are post appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Stock status is expressed relative to MSY reference points and with associated CVs (measures of precision). Forecasts (for setting TACs) are made for each species separately based upon the OMP (the harvest rule). These are done in terms of future biomass levels relative to MSY and inform on harvest stability objectives. The assessment includes the consequences of current harvest strategies, forecasts future consequences of these and evaluates stock trajectories under decision rules. The methodology applied is clearly appropriate for M. Capensis. Therefore SG 80 is met. Potential information gaps related to the assessment approach will be further discussed during the site visit.

Uncertainty in the assessment The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into major sources of uncertainty. uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is c Guide evaluating stock status Post relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The assessment models have been evaluated for significant uncertainties and functional relationships by examining likelihood, sensitivity analyses (relative to output management quantities), assumptions of basic model structure and

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 50 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

the significance of timing of fishing events. While some of these uncertainties are not yet fully understood, in many cases the direction of the bias, the range of the variance and the significance to management are reasonably well- known. Therefore SG 60 is met. The modelling approaches (likelihood fits, sensitivity analyses, multiple population models and OMP development through simulation) are all mechanisms which can estimate and evaluate uncertainty. Additionally, the OMP specifically addresses uncertainties and their effect on the management controls (TACs). Major uncertainties and assumptions are addressed in the management advice and through the appropriate decision rules to address those limitations. The M. capensis assessment process clearly documents the steps taken in these evaluations which are part of the formal record leading to the management advice to the governmental decision-makers. Whilst scientific debate continues about the best way to estimate the probability distributions, the methods employed for M. capensis are well-known and are considered to be reliable. More structural uncertainties do not lend themselves easily to the construction of probability distributions and were evaluated through sensitivity analyses. Therefore, SG 80 is met. The assessment makes a probabilistic evaluation of the stock status relative to the reference points (MSY) and projects these into the future over appropriate timescales. Harvest strategy rules are stochastically evaluated. Therefore SG 100 is met. Potential information gaps will be further discussed during the site visit.

Evaluation of assessment The assessment has been tested and shown to be Guide robust. Alternative d post hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Yes

Rationale

The harvest strategy, its information and modelling basis, and its utility in sustainably managing the cape hake fishery is reviewed regularly, with a view to ensuring that the most robust basis for the OMP is being used. New work reflecting improvements to the assessment has already been carried out as part of the redevelopment of the OMP in 2018. Therefore, SG 100 is met. Potential information gaps related to the evaluation of the assessment approach will be further discussed during the site visit.

Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been e status is subject to peer internally and externally post review. peer reviewed. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The harvest strategy, its information and modelling basis, and its utility in sustainably managing the cape hake fishery is reviewed regularly. The most recent review was conducted at the International Workshop (IWS) held in 2018, from which the panel of international peer reviewers recommended several improvements on which new assessment work has already been carried out successfully to recheck that the OMP will perform satisfactorily. Therefore, SG 80 and 100 are met.

References Rademeyer, R.A., Butterworth, D.S. & Ross-Gillespie A.R., 2018. Specification of the South African Hake 2018 Reference Case Assessment. MARAM/IWS/2018/Hake/P1rev. 44pp. Draft scoring range >80

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 51 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 52 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.3 Principle 2 The narrative text and scoring below is based on the information available to the assessment team prior to the site visit. Following the site visit this text will be revised to take account of new information gathered by the assessment team and submitted by stakeholders at the site visit. 7.3.1 Principle 2 background 7.3.1.1 The aquatic ecosystem The fishery takes place in an ecosystem defined by the cold, nutrient rich upwelling Benguela current that flows from the south and the warmer Agulhas current to the east (Figure 7). This is one of the most productive ocean areas in the world, with diverse faunas of seabirds, marine mammals, fish and invertebrate species (Davies et al. 2015). There is a good understanding of the main components of this ecosystem, as well as an understanding of how the different elements interact with each other. DAFF continues to conduct research and monitoring on demersal ecosystem components, including target and non-target fish species, and benthos (Anonymous, 2019). The role of hake, the effects of fishery removals and climate have all been modelled (Gasche et al. 2012; Shannon et al. 2000; Travers-Trolet et al. 2014; Heymans & Tomczak, 2016). Significantly increased trawling for hake (e.g. a four- fold increase in fishing mortality for a period of 5 years) is predicted to result in an increase in mesopelagic fish and cephalopods – the most important hake prey species. This may affect horse mackerel, which compete with hake prey species for food. Modelling has suggested that all groups would likely to return to their original levels within a period of 10-20 years after a period of intense fishing (Shannon et al. 2000). Modelled communities and interactions show greater sensitivity to the combined effects of climate and fisheries removals than fisheries removals alone (Travers-Trolet et al. 2014). The target species are reported to comprise 65% of the total catch in the offshore hake fishery (Williamson 2018a). Inshore and offshore, eight primary species (e.g. horse mackerel, panga, kingklip) and a diversity of secondary species (e.g. skates, rays, sharks, gurnard, squid) are caught (Table 12, Table 13). Of the non-target species, horse mackerel is perhaps the most important in terms of energy flow through the ecosystem. Horse mackerel is subject to a catch limit. Other species such as panga and kingklip may be locally significant and are subject to precautionary catch limits or experimental precautionary catch limits. Unwanted catch has been estimated at around 150 t annually (Smith et al. 2013), however the amount discarded may be higher (e.g. 16% in the inshore fishery). As well as hake, discarded catch is reported to comprise a range of species including rattails, sharks, skates, squid, ribbonfish, jacopever, and dory (Smith, 2016a, b). The nature and extent of demersal trawl impacts on habitat and biota vary, for example, with respect to gear characteristics, intensity of trawling, habitat and substrate types, and species present in communities. In addition to bycatch (e.g. of ETP species), internationally-documented impacts of trawling on marine biota encompass seabed and benthic communities and habitats. These may include increases in smaller and faster growing taxa, reduced abundance of larger slower growing taxa, attraction of scavengers, reduced habitat complexity, and mortality of infauna and epifauna (Sink et al. 2012). Trawling over time, together with climate influences, is likely to have effected distribution changes in demersal fish assemblages (Currie, 2017). The composition of fish assemblages has changed, based on historic and contemporary trawl surveys. For example, kob, panga, sole, carpenter and white stumpnose appear significantly less abundant than historically while spiny dogfish (Squalus spp.), Cape horse mackerel and gurnards appear more abundant (Currie et al. 2018). However, distinguishing the relative impacts of key pressures (i.e. climate, environmental variability, anthropogenic factors (especially fishing)) driving ecosystem change is difficult (Blamey et al. 2014; Heymans & Tomczak, 2016; Currie et al. 2019). However, there is no evidence of an overall reduction in productivity, nutrient recycling or other critical ecosystem functions. Evaluating the cumulative impacts of overlapping UoAs, as relevant to P2, is not required in this assessment. The Namibian hake fishery was considered in this regard (Table 8).

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 53 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Table 8: Assessment of Principle 2 components for the cumulative impacts of overlapping MSC UoAs. Namibian fishery information is sourced from the assessment team for that fishery.

Outcome Species Cumulative Rationale Performance impact? Indicator Primary species Pacific saury (Cololabis No Saury is a bait species in the Namibian hake (main) saira) longline fisher, and therefore not relevant to the South African hake trawl fishery. Secondary species Cape fur seal No Not below PRI (Namibia). (main) Classified as ETP in South Africa, and not subject to national or international catch limits.

ETP species White-chinned petrel No Not subject to national or international catch limits. Cape gannet No Sooty shearwater No Atlantic yellow-nosed No shearwater Black-browed No shearwater Shy-type albatross No Habitats N/A No The Namibian and South African hake fisheries occur within separate EEZs, however both countries are members of the Benguela Current Commission (BCC). The BCC promotes the optimal and sustainable utilisation of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem. To date, the BCC has not set out specific requirements relating to the management of benthic habitats.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 54 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Figure 7: The Benguela and Agulhas Currents, which are heavily influential in defining the ecosystem supporting the hake fishery. (Source: Davies et al. 2015). 7.3.1.2 Habitats South Africa National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) reviewed marine habitats in 2011 and identified 136 marine and coastal habitats. Benthic habitat types were characterized based on: • seabed substratum (such as mud, sand, gravel and rock) • depth • topography (such as shelf, canyon, or mound) • marine benthos (such as cold-water corals, gorgonians, sponges and soft corals). In 2007 the trawl fishing industry developed a map of the trawl footprint, encompassing the majority of the area trawled in the last four decades, and covering 70,160km². (Before 2007, the trawl footprint had grown steadily since the 1880s (reviewed by Sink et al. 2012)). Twenty-seven habitat types occur in this footprint. Eight of these occur predominantly (i.e. > 50% of the horizontal extent of the habitat) within the South African hake trawl footprint. 30 – 50% of another four habitats occur within the footprint (Table 9; Sink et al. 2012). Sandy habitats are generally regarded as being more resilient to trawling with lower biodiversity and more rapid recovery. Hard shelf habitats may be characterized in places by vulnerable marine ecosystems. Sink et al. (2012) identified 12 habitats as priorities for management action, based on four criteria: vulnerability to trawling, limited spatial extent, trawl impacts on the majority of habitat, and high levels of trawl effort. These habitats are listed in Table 10.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 55 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Table 9: Habitat types that occur within the trawl footprint for the South African hake-directed demersal trawl fishery. (Source: Sink et al. 2012).

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 56 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Table 10: Habitat types in approximate order of decreasing expected impact and concern as indicated by the number of criteria indicating concern, then percentage of total habitat extent within the hake trawl footprint, and then by decreasing vulnerability. Highlighted cells indicate concern under each of four criteria: habitat vulnerability, extent, proportion of total habitat extent within footprint and trawl intensity. (For full legend and table, refer to Sink et al. 2012, Table 7). Note that protection levels shown do not include marine protected areas gazetted in 2018.

Some of the habitats identified in the trawl footprint support Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) (see FAO 2009). These communities may include, for example, cold water corals, octocorals, sponges and other biota that constitute complex, structured habitat that supports high biodiversity. Many of the species that contribute to these aggregations and structures are slow growing with long recovery times. Some VMEs, such as dense sea pen fields, may also occur in rarely disturbed muddy habitats.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 57 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

South Africa has at least three species of fragile reef building corals, slow growing stylasterine hydrocorals, many species of black coral and octocoral and sponge dominated communities (Sink et al. 2012). The steeper parts of the shelf edge, submarine canyons (such as Cape Canyon off Saldanha), seamounts, Childs Bank, deep reefs, and deep hard ground on the west and south coasts are all likely to support VMEs. Some of the less dynamic mud communities in the bottom of canyons or at foot of shelf may support sensitive seapen or deep-sea sponge communities. The distribution of sponge communities is not well reported for this area, but in other parts of the world these can be coincident with offshore trawl grounds. Sink et al. (2012) provides a list of 12 habitats characterized in the National Biodiversity Assessment that are likely to support VMEs, and are found within the hake trawl footprint (Table 11). Their vulnerability depends on the habitat extent within the footprint, trawling pressure and the proportion of the total regional habitat area found within the trawl footprint. Table 11: Habitats characterized in the South African National Biodiversity Assessment that may support Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and occur within the hake trawl footprint. Habitats are listed in order of expected vulnerability, and with commensurate levels of certainty that they are coincident with VMEs. Habitats that may be within the footprint but for which less than 5% has been trawled are not considered (Source: Sink et al. 2012).

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 58 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Spatial management relevant to fishing activity includes area closures to trawl fishing and marine protected areas. Further, it is now a licence condition for inshore and offshore trawlers to fish only within the historic footprint. This is commonly referred to as the “ring-fencing” initiative (Andrews et al. 2015). Area closures specifically excluding trawlers are in place mostly to provide for other inshore fishing sectors (including False Bay, part of Algoa Bay, Mossel Bay, Cape Infanta, de Hoop, Plettenberg Bay and Jeffery’s Bay), but nonetheless are likely to provide some protection for benthic habitats. In addition, a closed area off Port Elizabeth during the period 1 September to 30 November to protect spawning kingklip provides some seasonal protection. In terms of habitat types, Agulhas Sandy Inner Shelf and Agulhas Hard Inner Shelf gain some protection from the exclusion of trawling from closed bays. MPAs in South African waters are established under the Marine and Living Resources Act (1998). The South African National Biodiversity Act (2004) and the Protected Areas Amendment Act (2004) call for the creation of a representative network of protected areas in the sea. Up to late 2018, there were 20 MPAs in the South African EEZ. Inshore trawl licences prohibit trawling within these MPAs although some trawl fishing does take place in the extractive use zone of the Table Mountain National Park MPA. In recent years there has been new momentum to create a viable network of MPAs and meet the Aichi (Convention on Biological Diversity) Biodiversity Targets5 as part of Operation Pakhisa – a national initiative designed to facilitate rapid decisions for the development and protection of the marine environment. In this context, 22 new proposed Marine Protected Areas were gazetted by South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs on 3 February 2016. Six of these included significant areas inside of the ring-fenced hake trawl grounds: Brown Bank (Coral 1, 2 and 3), Cape Canyon, Benguela muds, Childs Bank. This process ultimately resulted in the creation of 20 new MPAs on 24 October 2018 (Figure 8 declared in Government Gazette 42478, with regulations set out in Government Gazette 42479). The new MPAs increase the amount of protected South African waters from 0.4% to 5%.

5 https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ [Accessed 4 April 2019]

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 59 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Figure 8: New Marine Protected Areas in South African waters, approved in October 2018 (Source: https://www.sanbi.org/media/south-africa-announces-new-marine-protected-area-network/ [Accessed 1 April 2019]). In addition to area closures and MPAs, restrictions on gear may have some benefit in terms of reducing the impacts of trawling on benthic habitats, though this appears undocumented to date. For example, inshore trawlers are prohibited from using cod-end liners and: “The Permit Holder shall utilise only bottom trawl. No bobbins, nylon rollers or other devices whatsoever, with a diameter in excess of 375 mm or a weight in excess of 200kgs may be deployed with, or as part of, the trawl gear, except for floats and the single pair of trawl doors. The Permit Holder may not utilise beam trawl of twin trawls.” (DAFF, 2019b) For offshore trawlers, gear restrictions in permit conditions include a prohibition on the use of cod-end liners, and that: “No bobbins, nylon rollers or other devices whatsoever, with a diameter in excess of 750 mm or a weight in excess of 200kgs may be deployed with, or as part of, the trawl gear, except for floats and the single pair of trawl doors and the device separating trawls in the case of twin trawling.” (DAFF, 2019a) Outside of the above restrictions, rockhopper gear is used widely by offshore and occasionally inshore trawlers. The intent for observers to collect data on VME encounters and to implement move-on rules has been stated (SADSTIA, 2018) and a new guide which will support such data collection has been completed (Atkinson & Sink, 2018). A VME Task Team has been established to progress work relating to the National Biodiversity Assessment 2018, This Team has met to consider the science, mapping and management of VMEs, e.g. including indicator organisms, thresholds, move-on rules. Potential VME indicator organisms include Scleractinia (stony corals), Alcyonacea (soft corals), Gorgonacea (sea fans), Pennatulacea (sea pens), Porifera (sponges), Anthoathecata (including hydrocorals) and Bryozoa (moss animals, seamats), defined with reference to the FAO Guidelines (FAO, 2009; Franken, 2019; SADSTIA 2019). Move-on rules developed in other jurisdictions have been reviewed (Franken, 2019). Identification guides and posters have been developed to facilitate recognition of VMEs. There has been relatively little research specific to South African waters on the impacts of trawling on benthic habitats and recovery rates after trawling, although Atkinson (2009, 2011) studied the impact of trawling on the Southern Benguela Shelf Edge. The authors concluded that epifaunal abundances and species diversity decrease with increasing trawling intensity, and that there are considerable changes in epifaunal assemblages in more heavily trawled sites. However, the authors concluded that ecosystem function was unlikely to be undermined by trawling at current levels.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 60 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

An experiment has been underway since 2013/14 in response to a condition on the 2010 MSC fishery assessment. The research is designed to assess the impact of trawling on benthic habitats, and recovery rates. It is focused on the outer shelf of west coast, at 200 – 500 m depth in Southern Benguela Sandy Shelf Edge habitat. To date the main habitats and communities found have been described but there has not so far been a full assessment of impact and recovery rates. Some work has also been done on and around the Childs Bank (Attwood & Sink, 2015), which reveals the presence of VME communities, and evidence of trawl damage to these communities. The fifth and final survey for this work was completed in January 2018. Analytical work relating to this experiment continues, e.g. processing samples and images (Anonymous, 2019). Benthic macrofauna are monitored during demersal surveys, which is increasing knowledge of the abundance and distributions of these species (Anonymous, 2019). 7.3.1.3 Primary and secondary species6 Four “main” primary species (monkfish, horse mackerel, panga and kingklip) and four “minor” primary species (sole, silver kob, snoek and carpenter) are taken in the hake fishery (Table 13). A range of management measures are in place for these species, e.g. catch limits (TAC, Experimental Thresholds and Precautionary Upper Catch Limits (PUCL)), and move-on rules. Knowledge of the status of these stocks is variable. Some stocks are routinely assessed whereas the status of others is unknown, and assessments are not undertaken (Table 13). There is a large number (Table 12) of secondary species, for which information on catch patterns, status, and fishery impacts is sparse. DAFF has an ongoing programme relating to research and management of demersal species (Anonymous, 2019). Observer data on catch composition for the deepwater fleet has accumulated over time (Table 12). For the inshore fleet, significantly less information is available. (As a result, observer data for the fleets combined highlights the deepwater species (Table 12)).

Table 12: Primary and secondary species caught in the hake trawl fishery represented as a percentage of the total catch and a percentage of the hake (M. paradoxus and M. capensis). Data extracted from the SADSTIA observer database for the period, 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2018) was extracted from the observer’s catch composition samples in the unsorted catch, which was raised to the total catch. Weight raised to % of total Species common name bag weight (kg) catch M. paradoxus 44482183.01 68.104 M. capensis 9587910.79 14.680 Kingklip 2083095.74 3.189 Monk 2070008.54 3.169 Angelfish 1675865.36 2.566 Ribbonfish 887256.89 1.358 Snoek 818963.01 1.254 Jacopever 799776.91 1.224 Maasbanker 634195.33 0.971 John Dory 368486.77 0.564 Cape Dory 314720.50 0.482 Rat Tail 179530.52 0.275 Dogshark 164331.32 0.252 Skate 139600.06 0.214 Dogfish Longnose spp (Deania spp) 126696.24 0.194 Octopus giant (magnificus) 94883.01 0.145 Squid (potta) 84649.55 0.130 Panga 55724.51 0.085 Rat Tail Short Nose Rough 47963.16 0.073

6 For this assessment, primary main and minor species are allocated in accordance with 5% and 2% thresholds, i.e. if a species comprises > 5% of the catch, it is considered main, unless it is identified as less resilient. In that case, species comprising > 2% of catch are considered main.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 61 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Weight raised to % of total Species common name bag weight (kg) catch Squid (Toderopsis sagittatus) 44798.73 0.069 Octopus unid 43194.78 0.066 Dogshark, Shortspine spiny (Squalus mitsukurii) 39348.60 0.060 Red Mullet (Red Rover) 38783.91 0.059 Gurnard (Capensis) 49089.11 0.075 Mackerel 35806.14 0.055 Rat Tail Smooth 35330.76 0.054 Munchkin skate (Raja caudaspinosa) 35102.61 0.054 Squid (Loligo vulgaris) 33313.78 0.051 Alfonsino 32408.03 0.050 Catshark 27389.22 0.042 Catshark Yellow spotted (Scyliorhinus capensis) 27117.57 0.042 Catshark Izak (Holohalaelurus regini) 23678.45 0.036 Eel Cape Conger 21753.68 0.033 Stingray Pelagic (Dasyatis violacea) 15268.82 0.023 St Joseph shark 14505.15 0.022 Oilfish (Ruvettus) 12086.21 0.019 Dory Sp 11932.13 0.018 Cod Cape 11460.39 0.018 Squid Red flying 10965.89 0.017 Shy Shark 10781.53 0.017 Crab 9290.41 0.014 Lanternshark 8258.74 0.013 Biscuit skate (Raja straeleni) 7412.99 0.011 Gurnard Queketti 7349.08 0.011 Yellow spot skate (Raja wallacei) 6321.86 0.010 Spiky Dory 5670.21 0.009 Black ruff 4766.71 0.007 Rat Tail Long Nose 4702.56 0.007 Squid Red 4188.53 0.006 Jelly belly (Psychrolutes microcephalus) 4051.68 0.006 Gurnard unidentified 3737.41 0.006 Eel unidentified 3476.04 0.005 Silvers (Argyrozona argyrozona) 3252.97 0.005 Roughbelly skate (Raja springeri) 2853.50 0.004 Dogshark Shortnose (Squalus megalops) 2651.62 0.004 African softnose skate (Bathyraja smithii) 2459.93 0.004 Biskop (Wreckfish) 2158.11 0.003 Catshark Leopard (Poroderma pantherinum) 2058.30 0.003 Sole East Coast 2040.78 0.003 Squid Jewel (Hisoceutis) 2032.46 0.003 Kabeljou unidentified 1965.43 0.003 Escolar (Lepidocybium) 1914.98 0.003

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 62 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Weight raised to % of total Species common name bag weight (kg) catch Shark unidentified 1766.98 0.003 Horse fish 1714.79 0.003 Shark, Blue (Prionace glauca) 1665.78 0.003 Oreo Dory 1573.47 0.002 Shark, Bigeye Sixgill (Pliotrema warreni) 1567.59 0.002 Shark, Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) 1250.69 0.002 Stumpnose, White (Rhabdosargus globiceps) 1116.62 0.002 Dogshark, Spotted (Squalus acanthias) 942.31 0.001 Other bycatch 20461.82 0.031

Unwanted catch Unwanted catch from this fishery includes target, primary and secondary species. Catch of juveniles of the target hake species are encompassed in the assessments for those species. The composition of catch discarded from offshore vessels is shown in Figure 9, for 2016 and 2017, respectively. Overall, the quantity of discarded catch has been reported at around 150 t per year or 1% of the total hake catch (and less than 1% of landings). However, this value does not necessarily reflect the total catch that is discarded (Smith et al. 2013; Andrews et al. 2015). Further, offshore and inshore fishery discard rates may differ. Estimates of discards of around 16% have been reported in the inshore fishery (Attwood et al. 2011). Information available varies year to year, but broadly, there are no apparent gross changes in the species composition of discarded catch over time. The observer protocol for collecting data on retained catch and discards was revised in 2018 (Anonymous, 2018). Exploratory investigation of electronic monitoring (EM) using on-board cameras has shown promising results. This project was progressed to investigate discarding (Attwood, 2019). Results to date from this fishery indicate that EM enables more cost-effective and accurate monitoring of catch composition at higher levels of sampling coverage than human observers can provide (Lee & Atwood, undated). Next steps for this work include considering process error associated with imagery review, increasing coverage of invertebrate species and considering machine learning applications.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 63 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Figure 9: Composition of discards (% of sorted samples) recorded by observers on offshore hake trawl vessels in (a) 2016 and (b) 2017. (Sources: Smith 2016a, Williamson 2017).

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 64 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Table 13: Primary and Secondary species recorded in the deepwater and inshore trawl South African hake fisheries, 2005 – 18. (Sources: Greenstone, 2013; Williamson et al. 2018a; SADSTIA Observer Database). * = % total observed catch (1st January 2010 to 31 December 2018), for deepwater and inshore trawl fishing effort. Greenstone (2013) reports mean % landings (+ standard deviation) by hake- and sole-directed directed trawlers (2007 – 2011, hake-directed vessels shown first in cells, where two values are shown +SD). PUCL = Precautionary Upper Catch Limit, CPUE = Catch Per Unit Effort, SASSI = South African Sustainable Seafood Initiative.

Category Species Management Combined Deepwater Inshore References catch % % (mean) % (mean) (deepwater and inshore)*

Monkfish, Lophius Stock assessments conducted periodically. PUCL put in place >5 4 – 7 0.87 (+2.0) Greenstone, 2013 vomerinus from 2005. Catches were above this limit from 2005 – 2011. The limit was increased in 2012. Catches from 2012 – 2016 were 3* 0.03 (+0.08) Williamson 2018a below the revised PUCL. This species is managed on a Glazer, 2013 replacement yield basis. Biomass is considered to be increasing on the West Coast, and stable to very slightly increasing on the Smith et al. 2013 South Coast. Considered to be sustainably harvested by SASSI. Glazer et al. 2017a Licence requirement means each vessel required to reduce their catch of this species to 80% of average catch for period 1998 – 2002.

Horse mackerel, Targeted fishing occurs. Subject to PUCL. Catch has been 3.1 1 6.6 (+7.6) Greenstone, 2013 Trachurus trachurus consistently less than PUCL in recent years. No target or limit 0.98* 0.2 (+0.29) DAFF, 2016 Primary, main reference points. Stock status largely unknown but estimates considered in 2016 show a decline in catch rate and may indicate Johnston & Butterworth a decline in abundance. Total allowable catch was reduced and 2018 effort limitation have been implemented in the midwater trawl fishery in response. The 2017 CPUE was higher than in 2016, and currently it appears that a change in catchability is more likely than additional mortality in driving trends observed. As a result, an increase to the allowable effort (and the midwater TAC) may be considered appropriate. Fishing pressure is considered optimal, but stock status is unknown. Mesh size restrictions included in permit conditions (110 mm, bottom trawl, 75-85 mm midwater trawl by location); no twin trawls; no cod-end liners.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 65 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Category Species Management Combined Deepwater Inshore References catch % % (mean) % (mean) (deepwater and inshore)*

Panga, Pterogymnus Average catches were higher than replacement yields off the 0.09* 13.0 (+9.2) Greenstone, 2013 laniarius South Coast, under two scenarios tested. 1.3 (+1.1) Attwood et al. 2011 The species has been assessed as underfished, and a catch limit is in place. Mann, 2013 Glazer et al. 2017c Lee, 2017 (unpublished), cited in Attwood, 2019

Winker, 2017 (unpublished), cited in Attwood, 2019

Kingklip Genypterus Life history characteristics may make this species vulnerable to 2 3 – 3.5 1.0 (+1.1) Greenstone, 2013 capensis overfishing; it is a slow-growing, long-lived, late-maturing 0.28 (+0.11) aggregate spawner. 3.2* Smith et al. 2013 Two stock assessments have been conducted in the last decade DAFF, 2016 (2013, 2017). The 2013 model suggested increasing biomass for Brandão, 2017 the south and west coasts. The PUCL in place was (controversially, for WWF) increased in response. This limit was Demersal Scientific exceeded by 8 tons in 2018. In 2013, kingklip was estimated to Working Group, 2018 be at 40% B0). In 2017, modelling was undertaken that Attwood, 2019 considered this species as one stock and two stocks. Convergence problems were encountered during model fit and were tackled in several ways. The single stock approach

provides a current estimate of 0.72 of pre-exploitation abundance, while the two-stock approach gives 0.64 and 0.85. Licence conditions requires each vessel to reduce their catch of this species to 80% of average catch for period 1998 – 2002. A move-on rule is in place for this species for sole-directed fishing. There is a time-area closure in place at a spawning area on the South-east Coast.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 66 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Category Species Management Combined Deepwater Inshore References catch % % (mean) % (mean) (deepwater and inshore)*

East coast sole, Stock status uncertain. This species is considered to be under 0.004* 0.15 2.9 (+4.4) DAFF, 2016 Austroglossus “light” fishing pressure. CPUE declined 2009 – 2013 which could pectoralis reflect a decrease in productivity or catchability. CPUE had 35.5 (+8.1) Yemane, 2017, cited in increased in 2017, again with an uncertain cause. The stock may Glazer & Butterworth be over-exploited (at 10% of its pre-exploitation level). 2018 Directed fishing effort is limited by in terms of fishing hours. A Demersal Scientific Total Allowable Catch is also in place. Both limits increased in Working Group, 2018 2019 (from 2018). Skippers record sole-directed effort in Fairweather & Glazer logbooks. A co-management approach (with SECIFA in 2016, 2018 2017) transitioned to allocating fishing effort directly to rightsholders (in proportion with their TAC allocations) in 2018. Glazer & Butterworth The management objective is to limit F to levels that will provide 2018 for recovery (in case the CPUE reduction detected does reflect decreased productivity). No abundance estimate is available for 2017 or 2018 due to a lack of trawl surveys on the south coast. An increase in CPUE occurred in 2017; caution is advised in considering that result Primary, minor given there was reduced fishing effort for this species (while elevated CPUEs under normal fishing pressure characterised some other species).

Silver kob, Stock classified as overexploited and overfished and has been of 1.2 (+1.4) Greenstone, 2013 Argyrosomus inodorus concern since the 1980s. The stock had collapsed previously but 6.1 (+2.4) Winker et al. 2012 was considered to be at 21% B0 in 2012. The 2017 stock assessment (conducted using data up to 2015) found that Smith et al. 2013 overexploitation of this stock continued, and it was assessed as 10.4% B0 (5 – 17%) with F>FMSY. Since 1991, the decreasing Winker et al. 2017b trend in fishing mortality has been insufficient to allow rebuilding. Demersal Scientific The trawl fleet has been reported to capture less than 4% of stock Working Group, 2018 biomass, and (in the lst decade) 21% of the total catch of this Attwood, 2019 species. There is a voluntary PUCL (set higher than actual catch in 2014) for inshore hake grounds. Inshore fleet move-on rule of 5 nm applies if catch by weight of silver kob in any haul is >20% of sole catch (sole-directed fishing

activity) or 2% of hake catch (hake-directed fishing activity).

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 67 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Category Species Management Combined Deepwater Inshore References catch % % (mean) % (mean) (deepwater and inshore)* The inshore fishery operates in nursery grounds for this species at times, inhibiting rebuilding. In particular, the fishing grounds for sole overlap with the nursery grounds of this species. The inshore fleet was required to reduce their catch of this species to 80% of average catch for period 1998 – 2002 however implementation unknown due to lack of verification (e.g. by observer coverage).

Snoek, Thyrsites atun The 2017 stock assessment (based on 1987 – 2015 catch data) 1.5 1 – 2.4 0.3 – 1.5 Attwood et al. 2011 found that biomass of this species has never fallen below BMSY. Stock status and fishing pressure are considered optimal. There 1.3* Daneel & Atwood 2013 is 100% probability that snoek is above the target biomass of Smith et al. 2013 40% B0. Biomass has increased in the last decade. DAFF, 2016 Offshore fishery landed weight of snoek shall not exceed 20% of any landing’s processed weight. Move-on rule applies (vessel Smith, 2016b must move to a fishing location that differs >50 m in depth) when Kerwarth et al. 2017 catch of this species is >25% of the processed weight of any trawl haul. Williamson, 2018a A PUCL and a move-on rule apply for this species in the midwater Linefish Assessment trawl fishery targeting horse mackerel. Task Team, 2019

Carpenter (silvers) Vulnerable to overfishing due to life history characteristics (slow 0.005* 0.6 Attwood et al. 2011 Argyrozona argyrozona growing, long-lived). 2013 stock assessment found 40% B0 in S and SE regions of South Africa. An updated stock assessment in Winker et al. 2017a 2017 found the stock to be at 38% B0 (25-53%). After a previous Linefish Assessment decline, this species is now considered slightly under-exploited Task Team, 2019 or optimally exploited. If current catch levels are maintained, stock recovery is predicted to continue. Attwood, 2019 Experimental threshold piloted 2014/15, and implemented subsequently. This threshold was exceeded in 2014 (by 0.4 tons). A PUCL applies for this species in the midwater trawl fishery. A move-on rule has been proposed.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 68 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Category Species Management Combined Deepwater Inshore References catch % % (mean) % (mean) (deepwater and inshore)*

Secondary, main Skates and rays Mix of species (including biscuit skate (Raja straeleni), yellow 0.27* 0.3 1.6 (+1.3) Attwood et al. 2011 spot skate (Raja wallacei), munchkin skate (Raja caudaspinosa), e.g. Bathyraja, Raja roughnose skate (Cruriraja parcomaculata), roughbelly skate 7.1 (+2.9) Greenstone, 2013 (Raja springeri), African softnose skate (Bathyraja smithii), 4.9 Smith et al. 2013 eaglerays, pelagic stingray (Dasyatis violacea)) that are potentially vulnerable due to their life history characteristics. Glazer et al. 2017c Biscuit skate average catch was higher than replacement yield Da Silva et al. 2015 off the South Coast, and lower off the West Coast. Attwood, 2019 Catch also includes spearnose skate (Rostroraja alba), listed by IUCN as endangered with a declining population. Survey trends show a statistically significant declining population trend on the south coast. Experimental threshold piloted 2014/15, and implemented subsequently. Since first introduced, this threshold has been reduced. It has been reported that the majority of chondrichthyan catch is discarded from inshore and offshore trawl vessels at sea.

Gurnard Identified by SASSI as resilient to fishing pressure. 0.1* < 1% 2.5 (+1.5) Attwood et al. 2011 Chelidonichthys spp. Experimental threshold piloted 2014/15, and implemented 4.5 (+2.6) Greenstone, 2013 Secondary, minor subsequently. This threshold was exceeded in 2015 and 2016 by 20 and 17 tons, respectively. 4.7 Smith, 2016a

Catch under-reported on the West Coast due to discarding of Glazer et al. 2017b (+ other species small and sometimes larger fish (depending on market Glazer et al. 2017c recorded in small requirements). Catch assumed to be under-reported on the amounts in the South Coast for the same reason. In both south and west areas, Attwood, 2019 catch (see Table average catch was higher than replacement yield. 12, Table 13)) Angelfish / Atlantic No stock assessment available, although stock considered 2 3.1 0.01 Attwood et al. 2011 pomfret Brama brama underfished by SASSI. Replacement yield models did not converge, but average catch was not estimated to be more than 2.6* Glazer et al. 2017c replacement yield.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 69 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Category Species Management Combined Deepwater Inshore References catch % % (mean) % (mean) (deepwater and inshore)*

Sharks A mix of species caught (e.g. dogsharks: Deania spp., 0.4* 1. 1.1 (+1.2) Greenstone, 2013 Centroscymus crepidater, Squalus acanthias, Squalus 2.8 (+1.1) megalops, Squalus mitsukurii; catsharks: Holohalaelurus regani, Leslie & Glazer, 2013 Scyliorhinus capensis); blue shark (Prionace glauca), sixgill sawshark (Pliotrema warreni), porbeagle (Lamna nasus). It has Da Silva et al. 2015 been reported that the majority of chondrichthyan catch is discarded from inshore and offshore trawl vessels at sea. Da Silva et al. undated

Smoothhound shark (Mustelus mustelus): Linefish Task Assessment Team, 2019 Modelling conducted in 2018 concluded that there is a 58% probability that current harvest rates are unsustainable. On IUCN Red List as Vulnerable with a declining population in South Africa. A move-on rule has been proposed. Soupfin (tope) shark (Galeorhinus galeus) On IUCN RedList as Vulnerable with a declining population in South Africa. 98.5% probability that the stock is overfished, and that overfishing is occurring. The line fishery is the biggest contributor to fishing mortality, followed by the trawl fishery. No fishery-specific management is in place for sharks. A National Plan of Action for sharks was published in 2013.

White stumpnose Classified as Vulnerable by IUCN. 0.002* 2. 0.6 Attwood et al. 2010 Rhabdosargus globiceps Long-lived species susceptible to overfishing. Considered Glazer et al. 2017c overfished across most of their range. Average catch off the South Coast has been assessed as higher than replacement yield.

Ribbonfish No directed management. High variance in abundance 1 – 3 Attwood et al. 2011 Lepidopus caudatus estimates but no evidence of decline in abundance since 1984. 1.6* Smith et al. 2013 Replacement yield modelling provides an estimate of q suggesting trawls do not catch 87% of this species along tow Glazer et al. 2017c paths. Williamson, 2018b

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 70 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Category Species Management Combined Deepwater Inshore References catch % % (mean) % (mean) (deepwater and inshore)*

Squid Subject to an experimental precautionary catch threshold but no 0.25* 3.6 (+1.4) Greenstone, 2013 immediate concern documented. 2.5 (+1.3)

Jacopever Helicolenus Little known of stock structure or life history. No stock 1 1.6 Attwood et al. 2011 dactylopterus assessment. No directed fishery. Abundance estimates do not suggest a declining trend. 1.5* Smith et al. 2013 Fairweather & Durholtz, 2017

St Joseph shark Experimental threshold piloted 2014/15, and implemented 0.15 2.9 Attwood et al. 2011 Callorhinchus capensis subsequently. 0.02* Smith et al. 2013 Population appears to be increasing with no probability of worsening IUCN status (i.e. no change from Least Concern). Fairweather & Durholtz, 2017 Trawl fishery takes one third of annual catch of this species (gillnet and line fisheries are other important methods). Attwood, 2019 A move-on rule has been proposed. Linefish Assessment Task Team, 2019 Winker, 2019 Winker & Sherley, 2019

Cape dory These species are all among the top 12 bycatch species by 0.6* Daneel & Attwood, 2013 Zeus capensis weight. Glazer et al. 2017c Rough rattail Off the West Coast, average catch of Cape dory was less than Coelorhincus replacement yield. Off the South Coast, average catch was 0.09* simorhyncus greater than replacement yield. Softhead grenadier 0.07* (smooth rattail) Malacocephalus laevis

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 71 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.3.1.3.1 General management requirements In addition to the species-specific requirements for management, hake trawl fishing vessels must comply with general requirements that include the following. These conditions are described in fishing permit conditions (e.g. DAFF, 2019a, b). General management requirements for the offshore fleet: • Landing regulations: The total amount of hake harvested is required to account for a minimum of 50% of each landing in terms of landed processed weight. • Area of operation: Vessels must fish in waters 110 m or deeper and more than 20 nm from shore. General management requirements for the inshore fishery: • Authorised target species: These species (hake, horse mackerel and Agulhas sole) must account for a minimum of 50% (by weight) of each landing for hake-directed fishing calculated over the period of validity of the permit. • Vessel size and gear restrictions • Fishery protected areas: The inshore trawl fleet cannot fish in nearshore protected areas designated as nursery grounds, areas of high diversity, and areas fished using lines. Overall requirements/restrictions: • Spatial restrictions apply (stated in permit conditions) • Effort limitation measures apply, such that the number of vessels cannot increase. Effort cannot be transferred to other species once quota has been used. 7.3.1.4 Endangered, Threatened & Protected (ETP) species For this assessment, ETP species are those which are recognised as such by national legislation, species listed in specific international agreements (e.g. CITES Appendix I, ACAP) and species identified as out-of-scope that are classified as Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered on the IUCN Redlist. In South Africa, all species listed in the appendices of CITES are classified as “protected” by the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (No. 10 of 2004, Schedule 82). Some species are also protected by their specific listing in schedules of that Act, or other species or group-specific legislation (listed below by species group). ETP species known to interact with the hake trawl fishery include marine mammals, seabirds and sharks. While the distribution of marine turtles overlaps with the fishery, captures of these species have not been documented to date. 7.3.1.4.1 Pinnipeds: All seals were protected under the Sea Birds and Seals Protection Act (1973, Publication of Policy on the Management of Seals, Seabirds and Shorebirds Notice 1717 of 2007). The Cape fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus (A. pusillus Least Concern)) is included in CITES Appendix II. Seals have been reported caught during hake trawl fishing (Andrews et al. 2015; Weston and Attwood 2017). Captures appear not to have been quantified recently but are reported as occasional (Andrews et al. 2015). 7.3.1.4.2 Cetaceans: South Africa has a diverse cetacean fauna of more than 30 species (Best 2007; Davies et al. 2015). All species were protected under the Marine Living Resources Act 1998 (No. 18 of 1998). Many species existing in South African waters are listed in CITES Appendix I, and all other species of the Order Cetacea are included in Appendix II. Internationally, trawling is a well-known risk to cetaceans. Species known to be bycaught in trawl gear in south and southwest African waters include the following (Fertl and Leatherwood 1997; Weston and Attwood 2017), shown with their IUCN RedList classifications: • Heaviside’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus heavisidii, Near Threatened) • Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus, Least Concern) • Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis (Least Concern) and/or Delphinus capensis (Data Deficient)) • Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus, Least Concern) • Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus, Least Concern). The level of cetacean interactions with demersal trawl fisheries was reported as not significant in the 2010 fishery assessment (Powers et al. 2010).

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 72 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.3.1.4.3 Marine Turtles: Marine turtles were protected under the Marine Living Resources Act 1998 (No. 18 of 1998). Five species of marine turtles are now listed in the schedules of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (No. 10 of 2004). These species are all listed in CITES Appendix I. • Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea, Critically Endangered) • Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata Critically Endangered) • Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta, Endangered) • Green turtle (Chelonia mydas, Endangered) • Olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea, Endangered). Trawl fishing is a well-known risk for marine turtles internationally (Lewison et al. 2013; Wallace et al. 2013). Longline captures have been documented in South Africa (Weston and Attwood 2017), however, in the 2010 assessment it was noted that turtles are not known from hake demersal trawl fisheries (Powers et al. 2010). 7.3.1.4.4 Fish Bycatch of five ETP shark species and one teleost is reported to occur in the inshore hake trawl fishery (Weston & Attwood, 2017). These are protected by South African legislation (Table 14). Table 14: ETP fish species reported from the inshore hake trawl fishery (Weston & Attwood, 2017; IUCN, 2019). NEMBA = National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 2004; TOPS = Threatened or Protected Species listed in s 97 of NEMBA. JARA = "Just Another Red List Assessment”. JARA assesses extinction risk and enables a display of the probability of population decline against IUCN Red List categories; GL = generation length (Winker, 2019; Winker & Sherley, 2019). Species Protected by IUCN status Population trends Threats JARA assessment findings Tiger shark TOPS Near Threatened Decreasing Target and bycatch Galeocerdo cuvier in commercial fisheries and recreational fished across its range, killed in coastal shark control programmes Sawshark TOPS Near Threatened Unknown Demersal trawl Median Pliotrema warreni bycatch off southern change, 3 GL = Africa (and +56.5% Mozambique) Striped catshark TOPS Near Threatened Unknown Bycaught in Poroderma commercial africanum fisheries, recreationally fished Leopard catshark TOPS Data deficient Unknown Commercial and Poroderma recreational fishing; pantherinum deliberate killing as a “pest” by line fishers Smooth NEMBA Schedule Vulnerable Decreasing Targeted fisheries hammerhead 82 (listed on and bycatch across Sphyrna zygaena CITES Appendix its range II) Red steenbras TOPS Endangered Decreasing Collapsed stock Petrus rupestris highly vulnerable to overexploitation (slow growing, long- lived). Moratorium in place on fishing.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 73 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.3.1.4.5 Seabirds A diverse seabird fauna inhabits South African waters. Some of these species are listed in the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels. All seabirds were protected under the Sea Birds and Seals Protection Act (1973, Publication of Policy on the Management of Seals, Seabirds and Shorebirds Notice 1717 of 2007). Key species that are known to interact with the hake fishery are listed below, with information on status and threats (Table 15Error! Reference source not found.). Interactions between seabirds and trawl vessels include trawl warps strikes and net captures. These interactions may have no lasting effects on individual birds, or they may be killed or injured (Bull, 2007). Cryptic mortality may also occur (Pierre et al. 2015).

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 74 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Table 15: Seabird that interact with the hake trawl fishery and their status, population trends and threats.

Species ACAP IUCN status Population Threats References Annex 1 (IUCN 2019) trends species

Northern royal albatross Y Endangered Decreasing Reported internationally in fisheries bycatch, mostly from longline fisheries. Survival ACAP, 2012e rates of adults and juveniles suggest bycatch is not a major threat. Diomedea sanfordi Williamson, 2018b May interact with trawl warps in the hake fishery (recorded in the inshore fishery, noting the potential for misidentification of this species).

Indian Yellow-nosed Y Endangered Decreasing Decline attributed to interactions with longline fisheries and disease. Maree & Wanless, albatross 2011 Interactions documented with trawl warps. Thalassarche carteri ACAP, 2012c Interactions with offshore hake fishery are now considered rare. Maree et al. 2014

Atlantic Yellow-nosed Y Endangered Decreasing Vulnerable to bycatch in longline fisheries and warp-related mortality in trawl fisheries Maree & Wanless, Albatross Including South African and Namibian fisheries). Population decline attributed to 2011 bycatch. Thalassarche ACAP, 2012a chlororhynchos Interactions documented with trawl warps in hake fishery. Maree et al. 2014 Interactions with offshore hake fishery are now considered rare.

White-chinned petrel Y Vulnerable Decreasing Significant captures in trawl and longline fisheries across their range. May be Maree & Wanless, deliberate taken in waters off S. Angola. Chicks depredated on some breeding 2011 Procellaria aequinoctialis islands. ACAP, 2012i Interactions documented with trawl warps and nets. Williamson, 2018b In earlier years comprised 10% of the birds killed in the hake trawl (Watkins et al. 2007); 3 deaths recorded in more recent work (Maree et al. 2014).

Black Browed Albatross Y Least Concern Increasing Few land-based threats. Significant mortalities due to trawl and longline fishing. Maree & Wanless, Thalassarche 2011 melanophris Interactions documented with trawl warps. ACAP, 2012b Impacts of the deepwater hake trawl fishery were once significant but are now considered negligible. Maree et al. 2014

Shy albatross Y Near Unknown Vulnerable to fisheries bycatch (trawl and longline fisheries). Diseases have reduced Maree & Wanless, Thalassarche cauta Threatened chick survival in some years on breeding colonies. 2011

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 75 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Species ACAP IUCN status Population Threats References Annex 1 (IUCN 2019) trends species Interactions documented with hake trawl fishery trawl warps and nets. ACAP, 2012f Impacts of the hake deepwater trawl fishery were once significant but are now Maree et al. 2014 considered negligible. Williamson, 2018a

White-capped albatross Y Near Decreasing Vulnerable to fisheries bycatch (trawl and longline fisheries). Nest damage and ACAP, 2012h Threatened predation by feral pigs has reduced productivity in some years on one breeding Thalassarche steadi colony. Distinguishing white-capped and shy albatrosses at sea is extremely challenging. DNA analysis has confirmed bycatch of that white-capped albatrosses in South African trawl fisheries. Mitigation approaches that are effective for shy albatross also benefit this species.

Sooty shearwater N Near Decreasing Bycatch documented from longline fisheries, trawl warps and nets. Deliberate take of Uhlmann, 2003 Threatened chicks at some colonies. Puffinus griseus Maree & Wanless, Interactions documented with trawl warps, but level of interaction with hake deepwater 2011 trawl fishery is now very low. Maree et al. 2014

Cape gannet N Endangered Decreasing Overexploitation of prey fish; pollution; guano collection; ecological displacement, Maree & Wanless, predation (human and other). 2011 Morus capensis Interactions documented with trawl warps and nets in inshore (including side trawler Mashao et al. 2016 gear) and deepwater hake trawl fishery. Williamson, 2018b Challenging to mitigate capture risk due to plunge diving behaviour (tori lines in deepsea fishery did not alter mortality rates for this species). Maree et al. 2014

Pintado petrel N Least Concern Stable Reported bycaught in gillnet, longline and trawl fisheries. Widespread with large Maree & Wanless, population size. 2011 Daption capense Interactions documented with trawl warps and nets. Williamson, 2018b

Northern giant petrel Y Least Concern Increasing Longline and trawl bycatch reported. Land-based threats may occur, but most likely ACAP, 2012d limited in effect. Macronectes halli Maree & Wanless, Giant petrel interactions documented with trawl warps. 2011

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 76 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Species ACAP IUCN status Population Threats References Annex 1 (IUCN 2019) trends species

Southern giant petrel Y Least Concern Increasing Longline and trawl bycatch reported. Land-based threats may occur. ACAP, 2012g Macronectes giganteus Interactions documented with trawl warps. Maree & Wanless, 2011

Williamson, 2018b

Great shearwater N Least Concern Stable Widespread species, attends fishing vessels. Maree & Wanless, 2011 Ardenna gravis Interactions documented with trawl warps.

Subantarctic skua N Least Concern Decreasing Causes of decline unknown but may include nest predation and competition for prey. Williamson, 2018b Catharacta antarctica Interactions documented with trawl nets and warps including in inshore. IUCN, 2019

Cory’s shearwater N Least Concern Unknown Interactions documented with trawl warps in offshore hake trawl fishery. Smith, 2013 Calonectris borealis

Storm petrel N Interactions documented with trawl warps and nets. Williamson, 2018b

Kelp gull N Least Concern Increasing Widely distributed generalist species. Williamson, 2018b Larus dominicanus Interactions documented with trawl warps and nets.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 77 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Observations in 2004 and 2005 aboard SADSTIA trawlers suggested that around 18,000 birds were killed annually in the offshore South African hake trawl fishery (Watkins et al. 2008). From 2006, tori lines were used on offshore vessels with the goal of reducing this mortality. A substantial decrease in mortalities was reported, with tori line use and a decrease in fishing effort reducing mortalities to around 990 birds in 2010 (Maree et al. 2014). The fishing industry commissioned two dedicated seabird observers trained by BirdLife South Africa in 2012 to work on commercial trawlers in the main fishing areas. Bird interactions with the offshore fleet were monitored from July 2013, covering 74 trips and 146 trawls. Observers recorded approximately 148,000 seabirds close to the trawlers, and just over 7,500 interactions between birds and trawl gear. In 99% of interactions the birds were considered uninjured. Five birds (two Cape gannets and three Shy albatrosses) were found dead in the wings of the net during hauling, and two slight injuries were recorded. In this work, species most frequently observed interacting with the fishery were Cape gannet (23%), white chinned petrel (20%) and Pintado petrel (16%) (Smith, 2016a). While significant progress has been made in recent years, there are some residual concerns related to bird interactions. Success at deterring albatrosses from around trawl warps may have resulted in an increased impact on smaller bird species, notably pintado petrels (Daption capense), white-chinned Petrels (Procellaria aequinoctialis) and Cape gannets (Morus capensis) (Maree et al. 2014). Further, mitigation approaches to warp strikes generally do not address seabird captures in trawl nets. Seabird bycatch reduction methods are now included in license conditions for the offshore trawl fishery, that is the use of tori lines, not using bitumen in trawl warp lubricants, and not discharging offal until tori lines are deployed. Bycatch mitigation measures are also documented in Bird Mitigation Plans onboard vessels. Data on seabird interactions with the inshore fleet are limited. Observer coverage of this fleet has been significantly lower than for offshore vessels over time with constraints reported on observer accommodation aboard smaller trawlers, and a hiatus in fishing activity in one season since the last assessment of this fishery. Some data are available from the SECIFA inshore observer programme. Since April 2016, seabird observations have been conducted on 125 trawls across 12 trips on eight vessels. Seabird interactions with trawl warps and nets were recorded. All warp interactions observed (415) involving 13 seabird species were considered of low impact with the outcome of uninjured assigned. The outcomes of 12 net interactions with six seabird species were uninjured (8), unknown (3), and dead (1 Cape gannet retrieved from the codend) (Williamson 2018b). Preliminary analyses exploring the effect of tori lines on seabird interactions with inshore trawlers highlighted a strong trip-level effect and appear inconclusive with respect to tori line efficacy. These analyses provide a foundation for further work if additional data can be collected (Bergh and Leach 2019). While the body of knowledge is growing, an understanding of the nature and extent of interactions and the efficacy of mitigation measures that may be used in the inshore fleet remains limited. A general qualitative understanding has been achieved but developing quantitative estimates of fishing-related mortality for seabirds interacting with the inshore fishery will require more data (Andrews et al. 2015). 7.3.1.5 Summary: Principle 2 scoring elements An initial list of scoring elements for each MSC Performance Indicator has been compiled from the information summarised in the sections above. These scoring elements have been considered in their respective tables in section 7.3.2 below. The assessment team will review these scoring elements following the site visit.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 78 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Table 16: List of Principle 2 scoring elements considered for each MSC Principle 2 Performance Indicator. Additional information sought focuses on the time period since the 2015 reassessment (Andrews et al. 2015). (The term “data deficient” here is used to indicate whether or not it the scoring element meets the criteria set by the MSC for the relevant scoring element in Table 3 of FCR v2.1, and which would trigger the use of the “Risk Based Framework” in order to assess the impact of the fishery on that element).

Data- Additional information sought for Component Scoring elements Designation deficient7 assessment Monkfish Primary Main No Lophius vomerinus

Primary Horse mackerel Stock status (and biological limits Main Yes Trachurus trachurus relevant to assessment) unknown. Primary Panga Stock status (and biological limits Main Yes Pterogymnus laniarius relevant to assessment) unknown. Primary Kingklip Main No Genypterus capensis

East coast sole, Stock status (and biological limits Primary Minor Yes Austroglossus pectoralis relevant to assessment) unknown. Primary Silver kob, Argyrosomus Minor No inodorus

Primary Snoek Minor No Thyrsites atun

Primary Carpenter Argyrozona Minor No argyrozona Some information available on species caught. Status in relation to biologically Biscuit skate, Raja based limits appears unknown and Secondary Main Yes straeleni proportion of catch of different species unclear for inshore fishery.

Some information available on species caught. Status in relation to biologically Yellow spot skate, Raja based limits appears unknown and Secondary Main Yes wallacei proportion of catch of different species unclear for inshore fishery.

Some information available on species caught. Status in relation to biologically Munchkin skate, Raja based limits appears unknown and Secondary Main Yes caudaspinosa proportion of catch of different species unclear for inshore fishery.

Some information available on species caught. Status in relation to biologically Roughnose skate, based limits appears unknown and Secondary Main Yes Cruriraja parcomaculata proportion of catch of different species unclear for inshore fishery.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 79 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Data- Additional information sought for Component Scoring elements Designation deficient7 assessment Some information available on species caught. Status in relation to biologically African softnose skate, based limits appears unknown and Secondary Main Yes Bathyraja smithii proportion of catch of different species unclear for inshore fishery.

Some information available on species caught. Status in relation to biologically Pelagic stingray, based limits appears unknown and Secondary Main Yes Dasyatis violacea proportion of catch of different species unclear for inshore fishery.

Some information available on species caught. Status in relation to biologically Eaglerays, Myliobatidae based limits appears unknown and Secondary Main Yes family proportion of catch of different species unclear for inshore fishery.

Yes Status in relation to biologically based limits appears unknown (and Secondary Sharks Minor proportion of catch of different species unclear for inshore fishery). Gurnard Chelidonichthys Yes Status in relation to biologically based Secondary Minor spp. limits appears unknown. Angelfish / Atlantic Minor Yes Secondary pomfret Brama brama Minor Yes White stumpnose Secondary Rhabdosargus globiceps

Ribbonfish Minor Yes Secondary Lepidopus caudatus Minor Yes Secondary Squid

Jacopever Helicolenus Minor Yes Secondary dactylopterus

St Joseph shark Minor No Secondary Callorhinchus capensis Other minor secondary Minor Yes Any species/stock status information; Secondary species. management approaches in place Pinnipeds: Any recent information on Cape fur seal captures/capture rates/management of ETP Yes Arctocephalus pusillus these in the fishery under assessment pusillus Any recent information on captures/capture rates/management of ETP Cetaceans Yes these in the fishery under assessment (by species if possible) Marine turtles: Any recent information on ETP - Cheloniidae Yes captures/capture rates/management of - Dermochelyidae

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 80 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Data- Additional information sought for Component Scoring elements Designation deficient7 assessment these in the fishery under assessment (by species if possible) Sawshark Pliotrema ETP No warreni

Tiger shark Galeocerdo Any recent information on ETP Yes cuvier interactions/captures/capture rates/management of these ETP shark Striped catshark ETP Yes species, in the fishery under Poroderma africanum assessment Leopard catshark ETP Yes Poroderma pantherinum

Smooth hammerhead ETP Yes Sphyrna zygaena Any recent information on Red steenbras Petrus captures/capture rates/management ETP Yes rupestris approaches relevant to the fishery under assessment Northern royal albatross Yes Any additional information on the ETP Diomedea sanfordi nature and extent of seabird interactions with the inshore fishery, ETP Indian Yellow-nosed Yes albatross and management and mitigation of Thalassarche carteri those interactions. ETP Atlantic Yellow-nosed Yes Albatross

Thalassarche chlororhynchos ETP White-chinned petrel Yes Procellaria aequinoctialis ETP Black-browed Albatross Yes Thalassarche melanophris ETP Shy albatross Yes Thalassarche cauta ETP White-capped albatross Yes Thalassarche steadi ETP Sooty shearwater Yes Puffinus griseus ETP Cape gannet Yes Morus capensis ETP Pintado petrel Yes Daption capense ETP Northern giant petrel Yes Macronectes halli ETP Southern giant petrel Yes Macronectes giganteus ETP Great shearwater Yes Ardenna gravis ETP Subantarctic skua Yes Catharacta antarctica

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 81 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Data- Additional information sought for Component Scoring elements Designation deficient7 assessment ETP Cory’s shearwater Yes Calonectris borealis ETP Storm petrel Yes

ETP Kelp gull Yes Larus dominicanus Information on recovery rates, and an update on the Benthic Trawl Commonly Habitats Yes Experiment encountered habitats Any new management information relating to benthic habitat impacts

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 82 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Main primary species stock status Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary PRI. species are above the PRI OR and are fluctuating around a OR level consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures If the species is below the a Guide in place that are expected to PRI, there is either evidence post ensure that the UoA does not of recovery or a hinder recovery and demonstrably effective rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Monkfish: Biomass is considered to be increasing on the West Coast, and stable to very slightly increasing on the South Coast. A stock assessment has been conducted, based on replacement yield (Glazer et al., 2017a). Fishing pressure and stock status are considered optimal (DAFF, 2016). Monkfish is considered to be highly likely to be above the PRI, therefore, SG 80 is met. However, there is not a high degree of certainty that this species is both above the PRI and fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. SG 100 is not met. Horse mackerel: This species was considered to be within biological limits (Singh et al. 2013) though CPUE was considered very low in 2014 (Johnston et al. 2015). The 2017 CPUE was higher than in 2016. Currently it appears that a change in catchability is more likely than additional mortality in driving this. Therefore, an increase to the allowable effort (and the midwater TAC) may be considered appropriate (Johnston & Butterworth 2018). A PUCL is in place. Fishing pressure is considered optimal, but stock status is unknown (DAFF, 2016). This species appears highly likely to be above the PRI and SG 80 is met. However, there is not a high degree of certainty that it is both above the PRI and fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. SG 100 is not met. Panga: Current stock status is reported to be underfished (Lee 2017 and Winker 2017, cited in Attwood 2019); average catches were higher than replacement yields off the South Coast, under two scenarios tested (Glazer et al. 2017c). This species appears highly likely to be above the PRI and SG 80 is met. However, based on the information currently available, there is not a high degree of certainty that it is both above the PRI and fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. SG 100 is not met. Kingclip: In 2013, this species was estimated to be at 40% of unfished biomass (DAFF, 2016). In 2017, one stock and two stock scenarios were considered for this species. This work resulted in estimates ranging from 0.64 – 0.85 of the pre-exploitation abundances (Brandão, 2017). This species is highly likely to be above the PRI and SG 80 is met. There is not a high degree of certainty that it is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. SG 100 is not met.

b Minor primary species stock status

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 83 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Minor primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI.

Guide OR

post If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. Met? No

Rationale

East Coast sole: Stock status uncertain. The stock may be over-exploited (at 10% of its pre-exploitation level, (Yemane 2017, cited in Glazer & Butterworth, 2018)) but is considered lightly fished by DAFF (DAFF, 2016). No abundance estimate is available for 2017 or 2018. The management objective is to limit F to levels that will provide for recovery. The current management approach is expected to provide for some recovery of the stock, however it is considered that lower levels of harvest would increase the rate of that recovery. It is uncertain whether either requirement of SG 100 is met.

Snoek: 100% probability that this species is above the target biomass of 40% B0 (Kerwarth et al. 2017). SG 100 is met.

Carpenter: The 2017 updated stock assessment found the stock to be at 38% B0 (25-53%). This species is now considered optimally exploited. If current catch levels are maintained, stock recovery (following a previous decline) is predicted to continue (Winker et al. 2017a). SG 100 is met. Silver kob: Stock considered depleted and under heavy fishing pressure by DAFF (DAFF, 2016). The inshore fishery has been reported to operate in nursery areas at times. Stock is assessed at 10.4% B0 (5 – 17%) (Winker et al. 2017b). SG 100 is not met.

References Brandão, A. 2017. Updated assessment of the South African kingklip resource that includes catch-at-length data for the one- stock and two-stock hypotheses. FISHERIES/2017/JUL/SWG-DEM/20. 29 pp.

DAFF, 2016. Status of the South African Marine Fishery Resources 2016. 112pp.

Fairweather, T.P., & Durholtz, D., 2017. Data for simple assessments of key hake trawl by-catch species – part II. FISHERIES/2017/OCT/SWG-DEM/46. 16pp. Glazer, J.P., Durholtz, D. & Fairweather, T.P. 2017a. As assessment of the South African Monkfish resource, Lophius vomerinus. FISHERIES/2017/SEP/SWG-DEM/36. 13 pp.

Glazer, J.P., Fairweather, T.P. & Durholtz, M.D. 2017c. Preliminary results from the application of replacement yield models to coast-specific indices of abundance for various demersal by-catch species. Draft. FISHERIES/2017/FEB/SWG-DEM/05. 18 pp.

Glazer, J.P. & Butterworth, D.S. 2018. Exploratory analyses of the Agulhas sole assessment. FISHERIES/2018/MAR/SWG-DEM/13. 10 pp.

Johnston, S., Singh, L., Glazer, J. & Butterworth, D. 2015. The 2016 updated horse mackerel standardized CPUE and implications for Exceptional Circumstances applying when setting of the TAC for 2016. FISHERIES/2015/OCT/SWG-DEM/34. 14 pp. Johnston, S.J. & Butterworth, D.S. 2018. 2018 Updated horse mackerel assessments. FISHERIES/2018/OCT/SWG-DEM/54rev. 18pp.

Kerwath, S., Parker, D., Attwood, C., da Silva, C., Maggs, J. & Winker, H. 2017. The 2017 assessment of snoek

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 84 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

(Thyrsites atun) for the South African linefishery. FISHERIES/LSWG/2017/06. 27pp.

Singh, L., Cooper, R., & van der Westhuizen, J., 2013. Update on commercial catches and length frequencies for 2013 horse mackerel assessments. FISHERIES/2013/AUG/SWG-DEM/24. 4pp. Winker, H., Kerwath, S., Attwood, C., da Silva, C., Maggs, J. & Parker, D. 2017a. The 2017 assessment of carpenter (Argyrozona argyrozona) for the South African linefishery. FISHERIES/LSWG/2017/05. 27pp. Winker, H., Kerwath, S., Attwood, C., da Silva, C., Maggs, J. & Parker, D. 2017b. The 2017 assessment of silver kob (Argyrosomus indorus) for the South African linefishery. FISHERIES/LSWG/2017/04. 27pp.

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 85 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Management strategy in place There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for the UoA, if necessary, that place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing are expected to maintain or to necessary, that is expected to main and minor primary a Guide not hinder rebuilding of the maintain or to not hinder species. main primary species at/to rebuilding of the main primary post levels which are likely to be species at/to levels which are above the PRI. highly likely to be above the PRI.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Management measures are in place across the group of primary species considered. These include catch limits, gear and effort restrictions, area closures and move-on rules (see Table 13 and references within). Measures are designed to manage fishing impacts on primary main and minor species specifically. Changes to catch limits in response to information about stock status (e.g. for horse mackerel, kingklip and sole) demonstrates that there are mechanisms in place for the modification of fishing activities in the light of identification of unacceptable impacts. Therefore, it is clear that there is a strategy in place for managing all main and minor primary species and SG 100 is met.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are considered There is some objective Testing supports high likely to work, based on basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial b Guide plausible argument (e.g., measures/partial strategy will strategy/strategy will work, general experience, theory or work, based on some based on information directly post comparison with similar information directly about the about the fishery and/or fisheries/species). fishery and/or species species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The measures used to manage primary species include many that are standard tools for fisheries management, e.g. catch, effort, gear and area restrictions, and move-on rules. The management regime has been adapted to address changes in catch (that may reflect declines in abundance) or stock status (e.g. for kingklip, silver kob and horse mackerel) and in some cases recovery has been reported (Table 13 and references therein). Therefore, for some species at least, there is an objective basis for confidence that the measures are working, and that the management approaches have been tested. SG 80 is met. To date however, it appears that for silver kob in particular, testing does not provide high confidence that the management strategy will work. SG 100 is not met.

Management strategy implementation c There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that Guide the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is is being implemented being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 86 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

Rationale

There is some evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully, including from ongoing monitoring and compliance work. For example, catch limits and the integrity of closed areas are monitored. Stock status information provides evidence for some species that the strategy is achieving its objective (e.g. collected through trawl surveys) (Table 13 and references therein). In the offshore fishery, 6% of tows are monitored by observers (and 44% of vessels are observed) (Williamson, 2018a). SG 80 is met. Limited implementation of inshore observer coverage means that significantly less evidence is available as evidence of management strategy implementation by inshore vessels. Similarly, with less information available from the inshore sector, determining the efficacy of the management regime in achieving its objective is difficult (Williamson, 2018b). SG 100 is not met.

Shark finning

d Guide It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Not applicable: Sharks are not primary species in the UoA.

Review of alternative measures There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative e Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted catch of main primary catch of main primary species catch of all primary species, species. and they are implemented as and they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Measures have been considered and are in place to reduce unwanted catch (and therefore mortality) of primary species, e.g. catch limits (PUCL), gear and area restrictions (see section 7.3.1.3.1 of this report). There is evidence that these are reviewed over time and updated (Table 13 and references therein). SG 80 is met.

References Williamson, M., 2018a. SADSTIA Observer Programme. Capricorn Marine Environmental. 12pp.

Williamson, M., 2018b. SECIFA Scientific Observer Programme. December 2018. Capricorn Marine Environmental. 9pp. Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 87 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 88 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the is available and is adequate available and is adequate to impact of the UoA on the to assess the impact of the assess with a high degree main primary species with UoA on the main primary of certainty the impact of the respect to status. species with respect to status. UoA on main primary species with respect to status. a Guide OR OR

post If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative information adequate to estimate is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary attributes for main primary species. species. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Information from a variety of sources is available to estimate and assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species. This includes observer information and trawl survey data (information and sources summarised in Table 13). Significantly less information is available from the inshore sector (where observer coverage has been limited) (Williamson, 2018b). Replacement yield modelling conducted recently provides quantitative information on the impacts of the fishery. SG 80 is met. However, the impact of the UoA on primary main species status does not appear to be known for all species (Table 13) with a high degree of certainty. SG 100 is not met.

Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Some quantitative information b Guide is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor post primary species with respect to status. Met? Yes

Rationale

Information from a variety of sources is available to estimate and assess the impact of the UoA on all minor primary species’ status. This includes observer information and trawl survey data. Significantly less information is available from the inshore sector (where observer coverage has been limited). However, overall, information is considered adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor species’ status. SG 100 is met.

Information adequacy for management strategy c Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to

Guide support measures to manage support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main primary species. manage main primary all primary species, and post species. evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 89 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Information from a variety of sources is available to support a strategy to manage primary species. This includes observer information, trawl survey data and specific research projects. Therefore, SG 60, SG 80 and the first component of SG 100 are met. Overall, significantly less information is available from the inshore sector (where observer coverage has been limited). As a result, it is not possible to evaluate with a high degree of certainty that the strategy is achieving its objectives for all primary species. SG 100 is not met overall.

References Williamson, M., 2018b. SECIFA Scientific Observer Programme. December 2018. Capricorn Marine Environmental. 9pp. Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 90 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does PI 2.2.1 not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Main secondary species stock status Main secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of likely to be above biologically highly likely to be above certainty that main based limits. biologically based limits. secondary species are above biologically based limits. OR OR

If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures in limits, there is either place expected to ensure that evidence of recovery or a the UoA does not hinder demonstrably effective recovery and rebuilding. partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder a Guide recovery and rebuilding. post AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

Skates and rays are the most likely to comprise secondary main species, either as a group, or as individual species or subgroups of species (Table 12, Table 13). Life history characteristics make these species particularly vulnerable to fishery removals and catch includes one species which is known to be endangered (the spearnose skate). Skates and rays as a group comprise a small proportion of catch in the offshore fishery, and a more variable proportion in the inshore fishery. With the “skates and rays” group comprising a small proportion of the catch reported, it is unlikely that removals would either reduce the abundance of these species to a level below biologically based limits or would hinder their recovery and rebuilding. SG 60 is met. However, based on current information, it cannot be assessed as “highly likely” that the main secondary species are all above biologically based limits (particularly given the presence of an endangered and declining species in the catch (IUCN, 2019)). In addition, biscuit skate average catch was assessed as higher than replacement yield in one of two regions (Glazer et al. 2017c). This species is classified on the IUCN Red List as Data Deficient. SG 80 is not met. There is no information available about measures in place to manage or ameliorate the impacts of the UoA. A species by species catch breakdown would assist the assessment of this PI, should species-specific catch information be available. If not available, species groups may be used for final scoring. The MSC Risk Based Framework (RBF) will be used to score all skate and rays as there are no biologically based limits available, derived either from analytical stock assessment or using empirical approaches.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 91 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Minor secondary species stock status Minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

Guide OR b post If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? No

Rationale

The fishery-specific information available is not sufficient to assess this scoring issue for all species. SG 100 is not met. The RBF may be used to assess minor secondary species, or, in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Standard, they may not be assessed (see MSC FCP v2.1 at PF4.1.4).

References Glazer, J.P., Fairweather, T.P. & Durholtz, M.D. 2017c. Preliminary results from the application of replacement yield models to coast-specific indices of abundance for various demersal by-catch species. Draft. FISHERIES/2017/FEB/SWG-DEM/05. 18 pp.

IUCN, 2019. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-1. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 1 April 2019. Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 92 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place if necessary, which are place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing expected to maintain or not UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary hinder rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder species. a Guide secondary species at/to levels rebuilding of main secondary post which are highly likely to be species at/to levels which are above biologically based highly likely to be above limits or to ensure that the biologically based limits or to UoA does not hinder their ensure that the UoA does not recovery. hinder their recovery. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Skates and rays are the main secondary species (categorised together in the absence of more granular information) (Table 13). An experimental threshold was piloted for skates in 2014/15, and have been implemented subsequently (Inshore Trawl Bycatch Task Team 2014; WWF 2016; Attwood 2019). This threshold has decreased since first introduced. This measure and its application comprise a partial strategy; the annual reductions reflect an awareness of the need for the measure to be responsive. Therefore, it is concluded that if necessary, the partial strategy could maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main secondary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above biologically based limits, or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. SG 80 is met. It is also likely that some species included in the ‘main’ species group of skates and rays may not require measures to maintain their status above biologically-based limits. Based on current information, it appears that there is not a strategy in place for managing all main and minor secondary species. SG 100 is not met.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are considered There is some objective Testing supports high likely to work, based on basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial b Guide plausible argument (e.g. measures/partial strategy will strategy/strategy will work, post general experience, theory or work, based on some based on information directly comparison with similar information directly about the about the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). UoA and/or species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Controls on catch are a standard and commonly applied tool in fisheries management. In this fishery, catch limits have been successfully used to limit the catch of many species, and in some cases, have been part of a rebuilding package (Table 13). The experimental thresholds piloted in 2014/15 have been revised over time (Attwood, 2019), and these were developed with some knowledge of the species that they were intended to manage and the fishery. Therefore, SG 80 is met. However, based on information available, it cannot be considered that testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy will work. Therefore, SG 100 is not met.

Management strategy implementation c Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is post being implemented

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 93 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

is being implemented successfully and is successfully. achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? No No

Rationale

Based on currently available information, it is not clear as yet whether the partial strategy is being implemented on an ongoing basis.. SG 80 is not met.

Shark finning

d Guide It is likely that shark finning is It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is post not taking place. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Previous assessments have concluded that shark finning did not occur in this fishery (Andrews et al, 2015). Ongoing evidence of this and information from fisheries observers will be reviewed in order to support the scoring of this SI. Provisionally SG100 is met.

Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative e Guide measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- post related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary catch of main secondary catch of all secondary species. species and they are species, and they are implemented as appropriate. implemented, as appropriate. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

South Africa’s National Plan of Action (NPOA) for Sharks includes skates and rays in its definition of chondrichthyans. Management of these species was considered in the 2013 NPOA, including mitigation of bycatch and measures to reduce mortality occurring as a result of trawl fishing (da Silva, et al. undated), Therefore, SG 60 is met. At this stage there was no information provided by the client that would indicate a regular review of alternative measures, and implementation as appropriate. SG 80 is not met. Information on any consideration of measures to reduce unwanted catch of secondary species that has been undertaken since the last reassessment would be helpful to evaluate this Scoring Issue.

References Andrews, J., Groeneveld, J., & Pawson, M., 2015. South African Hake Trawl Fishery Final Report. Ref: 82007. Intertek Fisheries Certification.

Attwood, C. 2019. Report on the status of the experimental threshold project – bycatch management – of the inshore trawl fishery. 5 pp.

Da Silva, C., Winker, H., Parker, D., Wilke, C.G., Lamberth, S.J. & Kerwarth, S.E. undated. Update and review of the NPOA for sharks South Africa. 21 pp.

Inshore Trawl By-Catch Task Team, 2014. Report from the Inshore Trawl By-Catch Task Team. FISHERIES/2014/MAR/SWG-DEM/03. 6pp.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 94 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

WWF, 2014. Re: Hake trawl fishery – comments to MSC audit process. Letter to Dr Jim. Andrews, Lead Assessor.

WWF, 2016. SECIFA Experimental Threshold Fisheries Conservation Project (ET-FCP) Three-Year Workplan (2016-2018). 8pp. Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 95 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the is available and adequate to available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the assess the impact of the UoA assess with a high degree main secondary species with on main secondary species of certainty the impact of the respect to status. with respect to status. UoA on main secondary species with respect to status. OR OR a Guide post If RBF is used to score PI If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: 2.2.1 for the UoA:

Qualitative information is Some quantitative information adequate to estimate is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary attributes for main secondary species. species. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Some quantitative information is available and adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on skates and rays, the main secondary species (group) considered in this assessment. This includes information to enable a risk assessment to be conducted on these species (e.g. Weston & Attwood, 2017). SG 80 is met. Quantitative information available is not adequate to assess the UoA impact on these species with a high degree of certainty. SG 100 is not met.

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Some quantitative information b Guide is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor post secondary species with respect to status. Met? No

Rationale

For some minor species (St Joseph shark, ribbonfish), trawl survey data provide abundance estimates that enable a broad estimate of status (and the potential impact of the UoA) over time (Fairweather & Durholtz, 2017; Glazer, et al. 2017). However, this is not true for all minor species and therefore SG 100 is not met. SG 80 is met by default.

Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to c support measures to manage support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage Guide main secondary species. manage main secondary all secondary species, and species. evaluate with a high degree post of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 96 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Sufficient information is available to support both measures and a partial strategy to manage main secondary species. For example, there is some catch information and knowledge of the location of fishing activity. Information appears inadequate currently to support a strategy for all secondary species and assess its efficacy. SG60 and SG80 are therefore met.

References Fairweather, T.P., & Durholtz, D., 2017. Data for simple assessments of key hake trawl by-catch species – part II. FISHERIES/2017/OCT/SWG-DEM/46. 16pp.

Glazer, J.P., Leslie, R.W., & Durholtz, D., 2017. Further replacement yield calculations applied to bycatch species in the demersal and line fisheries. FISHERIES/2017/OCT/SWG-DEM/45. 6pp.

Weston, L. & Attwood, C., 2017. Monitoring of Endangered, Threatened & Protected (ETP) species caught as bycatch in five major South African fisheries. Responsible Fisheries Alliance, Cape Town. 65pp. Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 97 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or international requirements set international requirements set international requirements set a Guide limits for ETP species, the limits for ETP species, the limits for ETP species, there effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the is a high degree of certainty post population/ stock are known MSC UoAs on the population that the combined effects of and likely to be within these /stock are known and highly the MSC UoAs are within limits. likely to be within these limits. these limits. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

ETP species interacting with the hake trawl fishery include those protected by national legislation and listed in the appendices to CITES and ACAP. However, specific limits for protection and rebuilding have not been set. Therefore, this Scoring Issue is not applicable.

Direct effects Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA are There is a high degree of b Guide UoA are likely to not hinder highly likely to not hinder confidence that there are no recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. significant detrimental post direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

Known effects of the UoA on ETP include seabirds, marine mammals and some fish (see section 7.3.1 above). Based on the known extent of interactions with these species (e.g. available information on catch and bycatch), direct effects are likely to not hinder species recovery. SG60 is met. Information Gap: For vessels operating inshore and offshore, information on the capture of ETP fish species, including sharks (i.e. captures by species) would be informative (Table 14). While pinniped and cetacean captures have been considered in previous assessments, recent information on captures of these species would also be informative to address this scoring issue. Key knowledge gaps on direct effects include interactions and mortalities occurring in the inshore fishery, e.g. for seabirds (and possibly marine turtles, if they are caught) (refer to background section 7.3.1.4). The RBF may be used to score this PI.

Indirect effects Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of Guide considered for the UoA and confidence that there are no c are thought to be highly significant detrimental post likely to not create indirect effects of the UoA unacceptable impacts. on ETP species.

Met? Yes No

Rationale

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 98 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Indirect effects of the UoA (e.g. on prey availability) have been considered and are thought highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts. Among ETP, the potential for indirect effects on seabirds and seals are best understood based on information from this fishery and internationally (e.g. where seabirds forage on fishery waste). While it is considered likely to be the case, the information currently available appears insufficient to document a high level of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects.

References

IUCN, 2019. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-1. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 1 April 2019. Powers, J., Tingley, G., Japp, D., Combes, J. & Hough, A. 2010. MSC Reassessment Report for South African Hake Trawl Fishery. Certificate No.: MML-F-005. Moody Marine Ltd.

Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 99 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: - meet national and international requirements; - ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. PI 2.3.2 Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive that minimise the UoA-related for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for mortality of ETP species, and impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact a Guide are expected to be highly including measures to on ETP species, including likely to achieve national and minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise post international requirements for designed to be highly likely mortality, which is designed to the protection of ETP species. to achieve national and achieve above national and international requirements for international requirements for the protection of ETP species. the protection of ETP species. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

NA: 2.3.1 not scored.

Management strategy in place (alternative) There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure the strategy in place for b Guide the UoA does not hinder the UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to post recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

There are measures in place that are focused on reducing the direct impacts of the UoA on seabirds. These have been effectively developed and implemented for the offshore fishery and are developing in the inshore fishery. SG 60 is met. Permit conditions for deepsea hake trawlers and mid-water trawlers that are intended to reduce seabird captures and mortalities include (DAFF, 2019a, b): • the requirement to deploy a tori (bird-scaring) line to protect each trawl warp, port and starboard • specifications that the tori lines must meet (e.g. number of streamers, tensioning object, colour of materials) • that tori lines must be deployed immediately after the trawl doors enter the water, remain in place throughout fishing, and be retrieved immediately prior to hauling • the requirement to carry a full spare set of tori lines onboard • prohibition of offal discharge while trawl gear is shot • trawl warp splices must be whipped with loose ends trimmed • warps being lightly greased • prohibition of bitumen lubricants on trawl warps Inshore vessels operating offshore are exempt from the tori line requirements set out for deepsea trawlers (exemption set out in permit conditions for inshore vessels). Offal must not be discharged during shooting, unless tori lines are deployed. All inshore vessels are prohibited from using bitumen-containing lubricants on trawl warps and must trim

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 100 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

and whip warp splices. However, the use of other mitigation approaches (and assessment of their efficacy) is in progress (Bergh & Leach, 2019). There is a range of measures in place to limit the impact of the UoA (inshore and offshore) on ETP seabird species. This is sufficient to demonstrate a clear strategy is in place for seabird species, particularly for the offshore fleet. However, the same is not currently clear for the inshore fleet, and also for other ETP species (such as fish (Table 14)) impacted by the UoA and therefore SG 80 is not presently met. A comprehensive strategy does not appear to be in place for managing ETP bird species to ensure the UoA does not hinder their recovery. SG 100 is not met. Information gap: Further information required to assess the measures in place to reduce impact of the UoA on other ETP species.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy/comprehensive considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy is mainly based on based on plausible measures/strategy will work, information directly about the c Guide argument (e.g., general based on information directly fishery and/or species post experience, theory or about the fishery and/or the involved, and a quantitative comparison with similar species involved. analysis supports high fisheries/species). confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Tori lines are one of the best tested seabird mitigation measures globally, and extensive research has been done on their performance in trawl fisheries (focused on larger vessels). Research conducted in numerous larger-vessel trawl fisheries (including in South Africa) has also confirmed the efficacy of fish waste management (including offal retention) in reducing seabird strikes on trawl warps and bycatch. This body of information provides an objective basis for confidence that measures implemented for seabirds will work (Watkins et al. 2008; Pierre et al. 2012; Maree et al. 2014). SG 80 is met. Further, research is ongoing on the efficacy of tori lines deployed from inshore vessels. Based on currently available information, SG100 is not met. Information gap: The efficacy of any other measures deployed for other ETP requires consideration following identification of those measures and quantitative analysis.

Management strategy implementation There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive d Guide being implemented strategy is being implemented post successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Yes No

Rationale

Ongoing observer coverage on the deepsea vessels provides evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully overall (Williamson 2018a). There is significantly less information available from inshore observer coverage, but what is available documents information including on implementation of the seabird bycatch mitigation measures (Williamson, 2018b). Additional information from the inshore sector would inform this Scoring Issue.

e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 101 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- related mortality of ETP related mortality of ETP related mortality ETP species, species. species and they are and they are implemented, as implemented as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

Seabird mitigation measures have received particular attention in terms of ongoing review over time, including for the inshore fishery (Mashao et al. 2016). SG 60 is met. From the information received it is not clear to audit team how often these reviews are carried out. SG 80 is not met. As yet, it is not clear to audit team if the efficacy and practicality of measures for minimising UoA-related mortality of ETP species, other than seabirds, has been assessed. An information gap has been identified and will explored further at the site visit.

References Bergh, M., & Leach, K., 2019. Analysis of inshore trawling bird observation data with a view to estimating the scale of the TORI line effect, and the role of other variables. OLSPS Marine. 7pp.

DAFF, 2019a. Section C. Sector Specific Permit Conditions: Hake Deep-Sea Trawl. Fishing Season: 2019. 13pp.

DAFF, 2019b. Section C. Sector Specific Permit Conditions: Hake & Sole Inshore Trawl. Fishing Season: 2019. 14pp.

Maree, B. A., Wanless, R. M., Fairweather, T. P., Sullivan, B. J., & Yates, O., 2014. Significant reductions in mortality of threatened seabirds in a South African trawl fishery. Animal Conservation. doi: 10.1111/acv.12126. Mashao, M., Maree, B. & Wanless, R. 2016. Seabird mortality risks in the South African Inshore Trawl Fishery. Literature review and recommendations. BirdLife South Africa. 12pp. Pierre, J.P., Abraham, E.R., Cleal, J. and Middleton, D.A.J. 2012. Controlling trawler waste discharge to reduce seabird mortality. Fish. Res. 131-133, 30-38. Watkins, B.P, Petersen, S.L., & Ryan, P.G., 2008. Interactions between seabirds and deep water hake trawl gear: an assessment of impacts in South African waters. Anim. Conserv. 11, 247-254. Williamson, M., 2018a. SADSTIA Observer Programme. Capricorn Marine Environmental. 12pp. Williamson, M., 2018b. SECIFA Scientific Observer Programme. December 2018. Capricorn Marine Environmental. 9pp.

Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 102 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA 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 Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Qualitative information is Some quantitative information Quantitative information is adequate to estimate the is adequate to assess the available to assess with a UoA related mortality on ETP UoA related mortality and high degree of certainty the species. impact and to determine magnitude of UoA-related whether the UoA may be a impacts, mortalities and OR threat to protection and injuries and the recovery of the ETP species. consequences for the a Guide If RBF is used to score PI status of ETP species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR post Qualitative information is adequate to estimate If RBF is used to score PI productivity and 2.3.1 for the UoA: susceptibility attributes for Some quantitative information ETP species. is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. The UoA- related mortality can be very broadly estimated using the information available to date for this assessment. For the offshore fishery, quantitative information is available to inform assessment of UoA related mortalities of ETP. This has been derived from observer coverage on offshore vessels and targeted projects including on seabird bycatch (Maree et al. 2014; Williamson, 2018a). In the inshore fishery, observer coverage to date has been implemented at very low levels (around 1%) in a non- representative manner (Williamson, 2018b). Where coverage has occurred, this has produced valuable insights into ETP interactions. However, the amount of information available from the inshore sector to date precludes quantitative assessment of UoA-related mortalities of ETP species and the influence this mortality may have on ETP species recovery. While quantitative information that is adequate to assess UoA-related mortality and impact is lacking in the inshore sector, some quantitative information is available to assess the impact and mortality of the UoA on some ETP species, and productivity and susceptibility attributes of ETP. SG 80 is met. Quantitative information is not available for ETP to the extent required to meet SG100.

Information adequacy for management strategy Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive b manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage impacts, Guide species. impacts on ETP species. minimize mortality and injury post of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 103 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Met? Yes No No

Rationale

Information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on seabirds in the deepsea hake trawl fishery. In the inshore sector, information is not yet adequate to measure trends, although work is underway on seabird mitigation measures which would contribute to the development of a strategy for this group of ETP species (Williamson, 2018b; Bergh & Leach, 2019). Information gap: Information also appears inadequate to measure trends for other ETP species in the inshore sector (e.g. ETP sharks). Therefore, SG 80 appears to be not met, based on currently available information. Once the audit team has a clearer idea of what measures are in place to limit the impact of the UoA on other ETP species, it will be possible to score this SI in full.

References Bergh, M., & Leach, K., 2019. Analysis of inshore trawling bird observation data with a view to estimating the scale of the TORI line effect, and the role of other variables. OLSPS Marine. 7pp. . 14pp.

Maree, B. A., Wanless, R. M., Fairweather, T. P., Sullivan, B. J., & Yates, O., 2014. Significant reductions in mortality of threatened seabirds in a South African trawl fishery. Animal Conservation. doi: 10.1111/acv.12126

Williamson, M., 2018a. SADSTIA Observer Programme. Capricorn Marine Environmental. 12pp. Williamson, M., 2018b. SECIFA Scientific Observer Programme. December 2018. Capricorn Marine Environmental. 9pp.

Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 104 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Commonly encountered habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce structure and function to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to a Guide of the commonly encountered function of the commonly reduce structure and function habitats to a point where encountered habitats to a of the commonly encountered post there would be serious or point where there would be habitats to a point where irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Hake trawling has been restricted to a pre-existing trawl footprint since 2009, defined for operational purposes as the hake trawl ring fence (mapped by Wilkinson & Japp (2008, cited in Andrews et al. 2015), and available on request from DAFF in electronic format as the VMS MaxSea file Trawl Ring fenced 2009 Release V1.ptf). This restriction is specified in permit conditions and monitored by DAFF. While its extent has grown since the 1880s and the intensity of trawling on different habitats varies (Sink et al. 2012), the trawl footprint is considered to encompass habitats commonly encountered by this fishery. A significant body of work is available on habitat types within the trawl footprint, and the extent of trawling among these (e.g. Sink et al. 2012). Proposals for MPAs as part of Operation Phakisa were developed considering this work, in particular, the habitats of concern identified by Sink et al. (2012) (including habitats that are located entirely within the current trawl footprint). The 20 Marine Protected Areas newly gazetted in late 2018 reflect the proposals in almost all cases. MPAs include some areas that have never been trawled. Members of the client fishery have been instructed not to fish in these new MPAs, and there is intent to formalise a prohibition on fishing in these areas in 2020 permit conditions (J. Augustyn, pers.comm.) The exclusion of fishing from MPAs is set out in Government Gazette 42479. While effects have not been assessed quantitatively, restrictions in place on gear that contacts the bottom may have some benefit in terms of reducing benthic impacts of this fishery (Andrews et al. 2015). Among the habitats identified by Sink et al. (2012), those considered likely to support VMEs are considered in the next scoring issue. For non-VME habitats that are commonly encountered within the trawl footprint, it is provisionally concluded that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The findings of research underway on the recovery of benthic communities after the cessation of trawling will also inform this Scoring Issue (Andrews & Scarcella, 2018).

VME habitat status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely There is evidence that the reduce structure and function to reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to b Guide of the VME habitats to a point function of the VME habitats reduce structure and function post where there would be serious to a point where there would of the VME habitats to a point or irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible where there would be serious harm. or irreversible harm. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 105 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

In total, twelve habitats within the footprint have been identified as likely to support VMEs, with varying levels of certainty (e.g. based on imagery and samples collected; Table 11 (Sink et al. 2012)). These areas were considered in the development of the new MPA network gazetted in late 2018, and a number of the new MPAs include VMEs (e.g. corals), such as the Cape Canyon and Childs Bank MPAs. For VMEs now protected by MPAs, the UoA should have no further direct impacts, ensuring that the structure and function of these habitats is retained, meeting the SG60 requirements. The effects of the UoA on VME habitats that are outside closed areas is less clear, and at the site visit the assessment team will need to determine whether it is “highly unlikely” that there has been serious or irreversible harm to VME habitats (i.e. a loss of more than 80% of structure or function) in the period since 2006, which is the MSC baseline for determining such impacts. The findings of research underway on the recovery of benthic communities after trawling may inform this Scoring Issue (Andrews & Scarcella, 2018). As of yet, this information is not available, and SG 80 is not met.

Minor habitat status There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to c Guide reduce structure and function post of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Met? NA

Rationale

The trawl footprint (assessed as encompassing commonly encountered habitats and VMEs) includes all fishing activity. Therefore, there are no minor habitats to be considered under this Scoring Issue.

References Andrews, J., Groeneveld, J., & Pawson, M., 2015. South African Hake Trawl Fishery Final Report. Ref: 82007. Intertek Fisheries Certification.

Andrews, J., & Scarcella, G. 2018. MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification: On-Site Surveillance Visit – Report for South Africa Hake Trawl Fishery. 3rd Surveillance Audit. Acoura Marine. 125pp.

Sink K.J., Wilkinson S., Atkinson L.J, Sims P.F, Leslie R.W. & Attwood C.G. 2012. The potential impacts of South Africa’s demersal hake trawl fishery on benthic habitats: historical perspectives, spatial analyses, current review and potential management actions. Unpublished report, South African National Biodiversity Institute, 84pp. Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 106 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for a Guide place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of all expected to achieve the expected to achieve the MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries post Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of on habitats. performance. performance or above. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

There are measures in place to manage habitat impacts of the UoA, including the frozen trawl footprint (with monitoring to ensure fishing is occurring within it) and the designation of a network of protected areas. Members of the client fishery have been instructed not to fish in the recently designated MPAs, and there is an intent to formalise this in the 2020 fishing permit conditions (J. Augustyn, pers.comm.). Prohibitions on fishing within MPAs are set out in Government Gazette number 42479. As above, gear restrictions may also provide some mitigation of the fishery’s potential benthic impacts. The intent for observer data collection on VMEs to commence in late 2018 and the development of a comprehensive guide to support that data collection (Atkinson & Sink 2018) are noted. VME encounter protocols have been developed and adopted by the client fishery, which include the following provisions (SADSTIA, 2019): • Report of encounters with VME indicator taxa, at or above specified threshold limits • Management actions that must occur in response to encounter reports • Defined spatial exclusions from areas in which VME encounters are reported • Documentation of encounters, and, • Review of encounter information and the application of move-on rules triggered. These measures meet the SG60 requirements. It does not appear that the requirements of SG80 and SG100 are currently met. For example, at SG80, MSC requirements for a partial strategy include components such as move-on rules that are scientifically based and specific to the gear and habitats, and an awareness of the need to amend the measures in place if they cease to be effective. At SG100, MSC requirements for a strategy include a comprehensive management plan determining all fishing activities do not cause serious or irreversible harm to VMEs. It would also need to include mechanisms to modify fishing practices if unacceptable impacts are identified.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial b Guide based on plausible argument the measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, (e.g. general experience, will work, based on based on information directly post theory or comparison with information directly about about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/habitats). the UoA and/or habitats habitats involved. involved. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

Provided they are complied with, MPAs will protect habitats that could otherwise be impacted by bottom-fishing and the frozen trawl footprint will prevent new areas being fished by the UoA.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 107 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Encounter protocols and move-on rules are routinely applied approaches to managing the impacts of fishing on benthic habitats. In the client fishery, VME encounter protocols and move-on rules have been developed initially with reference to measures applied in other fisheries and jurisdictions (SADSTIA, 2019). Consequently, measures are considered likely to work based on plausible argument and SG60 is met. A dedicated VME Observer Program is underway, to determine VME indicator unit thresholds specific to the South African shelf (SADSTIA, 2019). Work is ongoing in the UoA to refine the management of fishery impacts on benthic habitats. At this point in time, however, SG80 and SG100 are not met.

Management strategy implementation There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative evidence that the evidence that the partial c Guide measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being post being implemented implemented successfully and successfully. is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

Rationale

Measures in place to manage habitat impacts of the UoA include the frozen trawl footprint and the designation of a network of protected areas. Fishing activities in relation to the frozen trawl footprint are monitored by DAFF using VMS. The MPAs were successfully gazetted in late 2018 after a lengthy development process. A limited timeframe has passed within which to assess the success of their implementation. Based on previous compliance data within the fishery it is expected to meet SG80. This Scoring Issue requires further assessment when all information is available relating to Scoring Issue (a). Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative d evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA complies with its complies with both its complies with both its Guide management requirements to management requirements management requirements and

post protect VMEs. and with protection measures with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, fisheries, where relevant. where relevant. Met? Yes NA NA

Rationale

Fishing activities in relation to the frozen trawl footprint are monitored by DAFF using VMS (Andrews & Scarcella, 2018). The MPAs were successfully gazetted in late 2018 after a lengthy development process. A limited timeframe has passed within which to assess the success of their implementation. Compliance with these area closures will require assessment over time. However, prior to the final gazettal of these MPAs, SADSTIA provided a letter to DEA indicating their intent to conform with some of the proposals (SADSTIA 2018). Members of the client fishery have since been instructed not to fish in the newly gazetted MPAs, and there is intent to formalise a prohibition on fishing in these areas in 2020 permit conditions (J. Augustyn, pers.comm.). This is interpreted as qualitative evidence of the intent to comply with the MPA area closures. There are no known VME protection measures in place for other fisheries inside the trawl footprint. Therefore, SG80 and SG100 are not assessed.

References

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 108 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Andrews, J., & Scarcella, G. 2018. MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification: On-Site Surveillance Visit – Report for South Africa Hake Trawl Fishery. 3rd Surveillance Audit. Acoura Marine. 125pp.

Atkinson, L..J., & Sink, K..J., (eds) 2018. Field Guide to the Offshore Marine Invertebrates of South Africa, Malachite Marketing and Media. pp. 498 pp.

SADSTIA, 2018. Letter to Deputy Director-General, Department of Environmental Affairs. SADSTIA Comments on Intention to Observe the Proposed Offshore Marine Protected Area Network. 2p.

SADSTIA, 2019. Bottom trawling move-on rules applicable to the South African hake inshore trawl and hake deep- sea trawl fisheries. 6 pp.

Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 109 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information quality The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all habitats the main habitats are broadly vulnerability of the main is known over their range, understood. habitats in the UoA area are with particular attention to the known at a level of detail occurrence of vulnerable OR relevant to the scale and habitats. intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI a Guide 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR post Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the If CSA is used to score PI types and distribution of the 2.4.1 for the UoA: main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Throughout the UoA area, there is a significant body of information on the types and distribution of the main habitats, and a broad understanding of the vulnerability of these (e.g. Sink et al. 2012). SG 60 is met. Similarly, the distribution of habitats has been assessed in South African waters. While it is uncertain as yet whether some habitat types support VMEs, the expected vulnerability has been assessed within the trawl footprint. In addition, a significant body of international literature is available on the impacts of demersal trawling on benthic habitats (enabling inference of vulnerability where UoA-specific impacts are unknown). SG 80 is met. Knowledge of the distribution of all habitats over their range appears incomplete, with new patches of VME-habitats still being discovered, for example. SG 100 is not met.

Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats have nature of the main impacts of main impacts of the UoA on been quantified fully. gear use on the main the main habitats, and there habitats, including spatial is reliable information on the overlap of habitat with fishing spatial extent of interaction gear. and on the timing and b location of use of the fishing Guide OR gear.

post If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: consequence and spatial Some quantitative information attributes of the main is available and is adequate habitats. to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 110 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Met? Yes No No

Rationale

The information available appears to support a thorough understanding of the spatial and temporal overlap of fishing activity with habitats in the UoA area (e.g. Sink et al. 2012). Internationally, there is a substantial body of information available on the impacts of demersal trawling on a range of habitats. SG 60 is met. The findings of research underway on the recovery of benthic communities after trawling should also inform this Scoring Issue (Andrews & Scarcella, 2018). For UoAs encountering VMEs, SG80 requires catch and catch rates of VME indicator organisms and information to support the scientific definition of precautionary trigger levels, where these are used. It also requires information on the precautionary closures, by the UoA and other fisheries, to protect VMEs (e.g. areas identified using move-on rules). To date, this information appears unavailable. SG 80 is not met.

Monitoring Adequate information Changes in all habitat c Guide continues to be collected to distributions over time are post detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats. Met? Yes No

Rationale

Compliance with the trawl footprint and patterns of fishing activity are monitored on an ongoing basis by DAFF. This information, together with any additional information sourced from vessel records, should highlight changes in trawling locations and intensity which could represent an increased risk to main habitats. SG 80 is met. Changes in habitat distributions over time appear not to have been measured. Therefore, SG100 is not met.

References Andrews, J., & Scarcella, G. 2018. MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification: On-Site Surveillance Visit – Report for South Africa Hake Trawl Fishery. 3rd Surveillance Audit. Acoura Marine. 125pp.

Sink K.J., Wilkinson S., Atkinson L.J, Sims P.F, Leslie R.W. & Attwood C.G. 2012. The potential impacts of South Africa’s demersal hake trawl fishery on benthic habitats: historical perspectives, spatial analyses, current review and potential management actions. Unpublished report, South African National Biodiversity Institute, 84pp. Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 111 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Ecosystem status The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the disrupt the key elements disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to Guide underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements a structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem post point where there would be a point where there would be a structure and function to a serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Broadly, the Benguela Current underlies ecosystem structure and function. This is a very large oceanographic system which is unaffected by the fishery. The role of hake, the effects of fishery removals and climate have all been modelled (Gasche et al. 2012; Shannon et al. 2000; Travers-Trolet et al. 2014; Heymans & Tomczak, 2016). Changes in the composition of some fish communities have been reported from part of the hake trawl fishery area (Currie, 2017). Distinguishing the relative impacts of key pressures (i.e. climate, environmental variability, anthropogenic factors (especially fishing)) driving ecosystem change is not possible with current knowledge (Blamey et al. 2014; Currie et al. 2018). However, modelling has suggested that changes resulting from a period of intense hake trawling (i.e. increased biomass of mesopelagic fish and cephalopods) would likely to return to their original levels within a period of 10-20 years (Shannon et al. 2000). Further, there is no evidence of an overall reduction in productivity, nutrient recycling or other critical ecosystem functions. The available scientific evidence on the ecosystem impacts of the fishery therefore indicates that it is highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of structure and function, which exceeds the requirements of the SG60 and SG80 indicators and meets SG 100.

References Blamey, L.K., Shannon, L.J., Bolton, J.J., Crawford, R.J.M., Dufois, F., Evers-King, H., Griffiths, C.L., Hutchings, L., Jarre, A., Roualt, M., Watermeyer, K. & Winker, H. 2014. Ecosystem changes in the southern Benguela and the underlying processes.

Currie, J.C., 2017. Historical baselines and a century of change in the demersal fish assemblages on South Africa’s Agulhas Bank. PhD Thesis. University of Cape Town. 197pp.

Currie, J.C., Sink, K., Atkinson, L., Winker, H., Durholtz, D., Leslie, R. & Attwood, C. 2018. Comparison of demersal fish assemblages on the inshore Angulhas Bank between 1903/1904 and 2015. FISHERIES/2018/MAY/SWG-DEM/23a. 39 pp. Gasche, L., Gascuel, D., Shannon, L., & Shin Y.-J., 2012. Global assessment of the fishing impacts on the Southern Benguela ecosystem using an EcoTroph modelling approach. J. Mar. Sci. 90, 1-12. Heymans, J.J. & Tomczak, M.T., 2016. Regime shifts in the Northern Benguela ecosystem: Challenges for management. Ecol. Mod. 331, 151-159.

Shannon, L.J., Curry, P.M. & Jarre, A., 2000. Modelling effects of fishing in the Southern Benguela ecosystem. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 720-722. Travers-Trolet, M., Shin Y.-J., Shannon, L.J., Moloney, C.L., & Field, J.G., 2014. Combined fishing and climate forcing in the Southern Benguela upwelling ecosystem: an end-to-end modelling approach reveals dampened effects. PLOS One 9, 1-9.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 112 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 113 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Management strategy in place There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to a Guide impacts of the UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, post UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Impacts of fishery removals on the ecosystem are managed through catch limits and other fishery controls that are intended to maintain the sustainability of the fishery and productivity of the target stocks. The impacts of varying fishing intensity have also been modelled (e.g. Shannon et al. 2000). Measures applicable to the management of UoA impacts on some other ecosystem elements (e.g. seabirds and benthos) are in place. The SG60 requirements are therefore met. Together, these measures comprise a partial strategy as required for this PI. Elements of this strategy include mechanisms for the modification of fishing practices in light of available information, meeting the SG80 requirements. Although the measures in place could be considered to form a “strategy” there is no evidence that a plan is in place to manage ecosystem impacts, so SG100 is not met.

Management strategy evaluation The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial b Guide based on plausible argument the measures/ partial strategy strategy/ strategy will work, (e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information directly post theory or comparison with information directly about the about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/ ecosystems). UoA and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Ecosystem modelling provides some objective basis for confidence that the strategy is working (e.g. Travers-Trolet et al. 2014). Modelling provides the opportunity for making predictions that can then be tested. Information collected from the UoA and UoA-area on hake catches and the abundance of other species also informs this assessment of efficacy. Information about the UoA and the ecosystem supporting it provide a platform for testing. This level of evaluation exceeds the SG60 and SG80 requirements and meets SG100.

Management strategy implementation c There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that Guide the measures/partial strategy the partial strategy/strategy is post is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully and is

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 114 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

Rationale

For the deepwater fishery, there is a range of evidence collected on a routine and ongoing basis that demonstrates the implementation of the strategy. For example, fisheries observers collect a large body of fishery-dependent information, while trawl surveys collect fishery independent information. For the inshore sector, some information is available on implementation, but this is a lot less comprehensive. SG80 is met for both sectors, but SG100 appears not to be, based on current information.

References Shannon, L.J., Curry, P.M. & Jarre, A., 2000. Modelling effects of fishing in the Southern Benguela ecosystem. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 720-722. Travers-Trolet, M., Shin Y.-J., Shannon, L.J., Moloney, C.L., & Field, J.G., 2014. Combined fishing and climate forcing in the Southern Benguela upwelling ecosystem: an end-to-end modelling approach reveals dampened effects. PLOS One 9, 1-9. Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 115 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Information quality

a Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to identify the key elements of broadly understand the key post the ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem.

Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The adequacy of information about the key ecosystem elements relevant to the UoA was assessed at the 2015 reassessment (Andrews et al. 2015). Since that time, there appears to be no significant new information that would support a change to the assessment of this Scoring Issue. Information remains adequate to broadly understand the key components of the ecosystem and SG80 is met.

Investigation of UoA impacts Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between the these key ecosystem these key ecosystem UoA and these ecosystem b Guide elements can be inferred from elements can be inferred from elements can be inferred from post existing information, but have existing information, and existing information, and not been investigated in some have been have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. detail. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

UoA impacts on the key ecosystem elements were assessed at the 2015 reassessment, e.g. the impact of the hake fishery on other fish species. Ecosystem modelling informed that determination (Shannon et al. 2000; Travers-Trolet et al. 2014). Since the 2015 reassessment, the knowledge base on some ecosystem elements has improved, for example, changes in fish community composition and distribution have been investigated. SG 80 is met. At SG100, monitoring the effects of environmental change on the natural productivity of UoA should include recognition of climate change (MSC requirements SA3.18.1.2). Several authors specifically consider the effects of climate on the southern Benguela ecosystem, and the relationship between climate and fishing pressures (Blamey et al. 2014; Travers-Trolet et al. 2014). This work emphasises the importance of considering both environmental variability and changes in fishing pressure. The influence of benthic habitats and ecosystems on broader ecosystem structure and function appear not to have been investigated in detail. However, research underway is expected to contribute to that understanding. As of yet, outcomes of this work have not been provided to the assessment team and SG 100 is not met.

Understanding of component functions The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on P1 components (i.e., P1 target target species, primary, c Guide species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species and ETP species and and Habitats are identified post Habitats) in the ecosystem and the main functions of are known. these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 116 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

The main functions of the ecosystem components are known, and this knowledge has enabled ecosystem modelling to take place. In turn, this modelling work has contributed to an understanding of the potential impacts of the UoA on other species. This work was considered in the 2015 reassessment (Andrews et al, 2015). Since that time, there appears to be no significant new information that would support a change to the assessment of this Scoring Issue. SG 100 is met.

Information relevance Adequate information is Adequate information is available on the impacts of available on the impacts of d Guide the UoA on these the UoA on the components post components to allow some of and elements to allow the the main consequences for main consequences for the the ecosystem to be inferred. ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on ecosystem components and elements such that the main consequences of fishing activity can be inferred. Information is better for the deepsea sector of the fishery overall but is sufficient to infer the main consequences of deepsea and inshore fishing activity on the ecosystem. SG 100 is met.

Monitoring Adequate data continue to be Information is adequate to e Guide collected to detect any support the development of post increase in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Yes No

Rationale

Data collection is ongoing in the UoA, e.g. on target species catch, and primary and secondary species. This data collection is significantly more extensive and robust in the deepsea sector compared to the inshore sector but is adequate in both to detect an increase in risk level. SG 80 is met. In the inshore sector, it appears that the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts would be challenged by the available information. SG100 is not met.

References Andrews, J., Groeneveld, J., & Pawson, M., 2015. South African Hake Trawl Fishery Final Report. Ref: 82007. Intertek Fisheries Certification.

Blamey, L.K., Shannon, L.J., Bolton, J.J., Crawford, R.J.M., Dufois, F., Evers-King, H., Griffiths, C.L., Hutchings, L., Jarre, A., Roualt, M., Watermeyer, K. & Winker, H. 2014. Ecosystem changes in the southern Benguela and the underlying processes.

Shannon, L.J., Curry, P.M. & Jarre, A., 2000. Modelling effects of fishing in the Southern Benguela ecosystem. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 720-722.

Travers-Trolet, M., Shin Y.-J., Shannon, L.J., Moloney, C.L., & Field, J.G., 2014. Combined fishing and climate forcing in the Southern Benguela upwelling ecosystem: an end-to-end modelling approach reveals dampened effects. PLOS One 9, 1-9. Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 117 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 118 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.4 Principle 3 As noted in previous sections, the narrative text and scoring below is based on the information available to the assessment team prior to the site visit. Following the site visit this text will be revised to take account of new information gathered by the assessment team and submitted by stakeholders at the site visit. 7.4.1 Principle 3 background The Units of Assessment operate within the “trawl footprint” which is located entirely within the South African EEZ (see Figure 4). In previous MSC assessments of this fishery the hake stocks have been considered as “single jurisdiction” stocks. At this re-assessment evidence has been presented which indicates that the hake stocks may be to some extent shared with Namibia. Although there is still some uncertainty about the exact spatial extent of stocks of both M. paradoxus and M. capensis around southern and western Africa, it appears that there may be a shared M. paradoxus stock within South African and Namibian waters, whilst it is unlikely that the M. capensis stock straddles the border (Strømme et al. 2016, Henriques et al. 2016, Benguela Current Commission 2017a, 2017b, Rademeyer and Butterworth 2017, Benguela Current Commission 2019a). The stocks of both M. paradoxus and M. capensis are located entirely within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of South Africa and Namibia; there is no “High Sea” aspect to fishing for either species. The MSC has provided guidance on how assessment teams should distinguish between the scope of the assessment under the “Governance and Policy” PIs (which examine “..the broad, high-level context of the fishery management system within which the UoA is found”); and the “Fishery Specific Management System” PIs (which focus “on the management system directly applied to the fishery…which in some fisheries will include both national and international components.”) (MSC FCRv2.01, Table GSA9). Applying the MSC Guidance to this assessment: - a) The Governance and Policy PIs (3.1.x) will consider how the management of the UoAs is conducted at the national level and, where necessary, through collaboration with other countries when stocks are shared. Thus the “Governance and Policy PIs” for M. paradoxus will consider the management regime throughout the range of this stock (i.e. South African, Namibian and also international management). For M. capensis, the scope of the assessment is limited to the South African management regime. b) The Fishery-Specific Management PIs (3.2.x) will consider the management system that applies directly to the UoAs. For both the M. paradoxus and M. capensis UoAs in South Africa, the scope of this aspect of the assessment is therefore limited to the South African management regime. A summary of the relevant management regimes in place in South Africa, Namibia and at the international level is presented below to set the context for the initial appraisal of the South African M. paradoxus and M. capensis UoAs against the MSC Standard. 7.4.2 Governance and Policy As noted above, the information presented here considers the South African, Namibian and international aspects of management, all of which are relevant to the M. paradoxus UoA. Only the South African management regime is relevant to M. capensis. 7.4.2.1 National legislation and international commitments 7.4.2.1.1 South African legislation The South African Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends offshore to 200 nautical miles. Within the EEZ, South Africa’s natural environment is governed by several national acts, summarised in Table 17 below.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 119 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Table 17: Summary of key legislation in place for managing fisheries in the South African EEZ.

Title Responsible Purpose Department Directly related to sector Marine Living Resources Act, Initially Provides for the conservation of marine ecosystem, the long-term No 18 of 1998 as amended by Environment sustainable utilisation of marine living resources and the orderly access Act No. 5 of 2014 Affairs and to their exploitation, utilisation and protection. Tourism, then under DAFF, and now DEFF Policy for the small scale DEFF Adoption of a developmental approach and an integrated and rights- fisheries sector in South based allocation system which recognizes the need to ensure the Africa. Government Gazette, ecological sustainability of the resource; identifies small scale fishers as South Africa 564 (35455). a category of fishers for the purposes of the MLRA in law; and provides for community orientation in the management of the marine living resources harvested by these fishers. General and sector specific DEFF These policies are developed, with stakeholder consultation, for specific policies for the allocation of fisheries in which long-term rights are being issued. The policies set out fishing rights. objectives, criteria and considerations that will guide the allocation of fishing rights in the specific fishery and also guide the Delegated Authority in taking decisions on applications in this fishery. See https://www.daff.gov.za/daffweb3/Branches/Fisheries-Management/- Fishing-Rights-Allocation-Process-FRAP- Permit conditions associated DEFF Permits include conditions regulating the manner in which fishing with permits for specific operations are carried out and are aimed at addressing areas of fisheries that allow a right concern. They can cover any aspect of fishing required to ensure holder to fish. sustainable fishing and the impacts of fishing on the ecosystem (see e.g. Cochrane et al. 2015). Relevant to sector National Environmental DEA To provide for co-operative, environmental governance by establishing Management Act, 107 of 1998 principles for decision-making on matters affecting the environment, (NEMA) institutions that will promote co-operative governance and procedures for co-ordinating environmental functions exercised by organs of state; and to provide for matters connected therewith. National Environmental DEA To provide for the protection and conservation of ecologically viable Management - Protected areas representative of South Africa’s biological diversity and its natural Areas Act, 57 Of 2003 landscapes and seascapes; for the establishment of a national register of all national, provincial and local protected areas; for the management of those areas in accordance with national norms and standards; for intergovernmental co-operation and public consultation in matters concerning protected areas; and for matters in connection therewith. Act No. 21 of 2014: National DEA To amend the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Environmental Management: Act, 2003, so as to amend or insert certain definitions; to authorise the Protected Areas Amendment declaration of marine protected areas; to provide for the management Act, 2014 of marine protected areas; to provide for transitional measures; and to effect certain textual alterations; and to provide for matters connected therewith. Marine Spatial Planning Act. DEA “To provide a framework for marine spatial planning in South Africa; to Promulgated in May 2019. provide for the development of marine spatial plans; to provide for institutional arrangements for the implementation of marine spatial plans and governance of the use of the ocean by multiple sectors; and to provide for matters connected therewith.”

For fisheries, the key legislation is the MLRA and associated regulations. These are amended on a regular basis to incorporate updated management measures or strategies based on best scientific advice. Amendments are published in the Government Gazette.

Fishing rights are allocated to commercial operators by the South African Government in accordance with the Marine Living Resources Act and national policies including: -

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 120 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

• General Policy on the Allocation of Commercial Fishing Rights, 2005 • General Policy on the Allocation and Management of Fishing Rights, 2013 • Policy for the Transfer of Commercial Fishing Rights, 2009. The most recent fishing rights allocation for the inshore fleet took place in 2015, and the rights allocation for the deep- sea fleet was due to take place in 2020 (though this deadline has recently been extended). This process is informed by the Fishing Rights Allocation Process (FRAP) that was introduced by the Government in 2015 and provides the basis for decision-making (DAFF 2018a, 2019a, DEFF 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). All fishing rights holders are required to operate in accordance with formal and binding licence conditions. As well as general conditions that apply to all métiers (DAFF 2019b) there are also sector-specific conditions, with certain conditions applying to the Deep-Sea trawl fishery (DAFF 2019c); and others that are specific to the inshore hake and sole trawl fishery (DAFF 2019d). These licence conditions require, inter alia, that vessels deploy bird scaring devices (Tori lines); that they may only land specified quantities of certain non-target fish species; identify closed areas where trawling is not permitted; specify the type of fishing gear that can be used; and stipulate that all trawling must take place within the historical trawl footprint. 7.4.2.1.2 Namibian legislation The Namibian EEZ was established in 1990 and extends offshore to 200 nautical miles. The legislation in place for managing fishing activity within the Namibia EEZ is summarised below. Table 18: Summary of key legislation in place for managing fisheries in the Namibian EEZ.

Title Responsible Purpose Department

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Ministry of Core functions reflected in Namibia’s 5th National Development Resources Strategic Plan 2017/18 – Fisheries and Plan, to achieve “Namibia becoming a leading fishing nation, with 2021/22. Republic of Namibia. Marine well-developed aquaculture industry”. Resources Marine Resources Act 27 of 2000, as Ministry of For conservation and control of the marine ecosystem and amended by the Marine Resources Fisheries and responsible and sustainable utilization, conservation, protection Amendment Act 9 of 2015. Marine and promotion of marine resources. The amendment provides for Resources sovereign exercise of ownership by the State over marine resources, total allowable catch and quota allocation. Namibia’s Marine Resources Policy: Ministry of To achieve establishment of effective fisheries monitoring; a Towards Responsible Development Fisheries and control and surveillance system; and establishment of a viable and Management of the Marine Marine rights-based national fishing and processing industry with Resources Sector. August 2004. Resources maximum Namibianisation of jobs and empowerment of Based on the 1991 White Paper. previously excluded people. Also reflects Namibia’s signing of international fisheries conventions, agreements and arrangements. National Plan of Action to Prevent, Ministry of Namibia’s national plan of action against IUU fishing. Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Fisheries and Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing. Marine January 2007. Resources Policy Statement (Guidelines) for the Ministry of The purpose of these guidelines is to provide assistance to Granting of Rights to Harvest Marine Fisheries and applicants in their quest to acquire rights to harvest marine Resources and the Allocation of Marine resources and quotas in Namibian marine waters. Fishing Quotas. June 2013. Resources (Draft) Fisheries Policy 2015. Ministry of Ensuring fisheries and aquatic resources’ sustainability and (guided by Vision 2030) Fisheries and maximising economic and social benefits for Namibians. Policy Marine aims to achieve sustainable utilisation of fisheries and marine Resources resources, as well as aquaculture and equitable distribution of wealth through food security, value addition, food safety standards compliance and trade in fisheries.

7.4.2.1.3 International commitments At the international level, the Republic of South Africa and Government is a signatory to many agreements including: - • Benguela Current Convention (BCC) • Bonn Convention (conservation of migratory species, incl. seabirds)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 121 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

• CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) • Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) • London Convention (regulating the dumping of waste at sea) • MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships) • UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) • UN Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA)

The UN Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) and Benguela Current Convention (BCC) are particularly relevant to this assessment now that there is evidence that the deep-water hake (M. paradoxus) stock may be shared between South Africa and Namibia.

UNFSA provides a global framework for cooperation in the management of such stocks, and the BCC provides a regional context for delivering this approach, particularly with respect to Article 10 of UNFSA (United Nations 1995).

The Benguela Current Convention was agreed by the Governments of South Africa, Namibia and Angola in 2013 (Benguela Current Commission 2013). The objective of this convention, its scope and general principles are reproduced below: - Article 2 Objective The objective of this Convention is to promote a coordinated regional approach to the long-term conservation, protection, rehabilitation, enhancement and sustainable use of the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem, to provide economic, environmental and social benefits. Article 3 Area of Application (1) The area of application for this Convention comprises all areas within the national sovereignty and jurisdiction in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, bounded by the high-water mark along the coasts of the Parties. (2) This Convention applies to all human activities, aircrafts and ships under jurisdiction or control of a Party to the extent that these activities or the operation of such aircraft or ship result in or are likely to result in adverse impacts. Article 4 General Principles (1) The Parties shall be guided by the following principles: (a) The cooperation, collaboration and sovereign equality principle; (b) sustainable use and management of the marine resources; (c) the precautionary principle; (d) prevention, avoidance and mitigation of pollution; (e) the polluter pays principle; and (f ) protection of biodiversity in the marine environment and conservation of the marine ecosystem. (2) In giving effect to the objective of this Convention and to the principles in paragraph (1), the Parties shall - (a) take all possible steps to prevent, abate and minimise pollution and take the necessary measures to protect the marine ecosystem against any adverse impacts; (b) undertake environmental impact assessment for proposed activities that are likely to cause adverse impacts on the marine and coastal environments; (c) apply management measures based on the best scientific evidence available; (d) establish mechanisms for intersectoral data collection, sharing and exchange thereof; (e) where possible, reverse and prevent habitat alteration and destruction; (f ) protect vulnerable species and biological diversity; and (g) take all possible steps to strengthen and maintain human and infrastructural capacity. This Convention may assist with the development of the management arrangements for the hake stocks by the Governments of South Africa and Namibia if the stock assessments and associated projections of the impacts of alternative bases for management indicate that this would be necessary.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 122 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.4.2.2 Institutions 7.4.2.2.1 South African institutions The Management Authority responsible for implementing the MLRA is the Department of the Environment Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF8). DEFF includes Directorates for • Monitoring, Control and Compliance: fisheries protection vessels and supporting infrastructure, VMS overview etc ; assisted by customs, police/navy and provincial authorities; • Marine Resources Management: to ensure the sustainable utilization, equitable and orderly access to nearshore, offshore and High Seas fisheries resources through improved management and regulation; and • Fisheries Research and Development: research on ecosystems and environmental impacts of fisheries. Two working groups within DEFF deal with all aspects of the hake trawl fishery, namely a Scientific Working Group (to guide the science underlying management strategies) a Resource Management Working Group (to facilitate implementation of management strategy, including advice on vessel capacity). DAFF fisheries managers and representatives of the fishing industry participate in these groups. The functions, roles and responsibilities of these working groups are clearly defined. 7.4.2.2.2 Namibian institutions The key institution for fisheries management in Namibia is the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR). MFMR is responsible for implementing fisheries policy and legislation in Namibia (Government of Namibia 2000, 2001, MFMR 2004, 2013, 2017), which is summarised in Table 18 of this report. Responsibility for overall policy and planning in Namibia is the responsibility of the Government’s Directorate of Planning, Policy & Economics (DPPE), which coordinates the formulation and implementation of fisheries policies and legislation. The core directorates of MFMR are based in Windhoek, with research and compliance functions located on the coast in Swakopmund, Walvis Bay and Luderitz.

The MFMR Operations Directorate in Windhoek oversees monitoring control and surveillance (MCS) activities carried out by the MCS office based at Walvis Bay. The Operations Directorate is responsible for regulating fishing activities within the Namibian EEZ; MCS activities both at sea and onshore; and fisheries legislation enforcement.

The MFMR Research Directorate in Windhoek oversees the research carried out by the National Marine Information and Resource Centre (NatMIRC) in Swakopmund and Luderitz. The main responsibilities of NatMIRC with respect to marine fisheries include providing advice on the state of commercially fish stocks and recommendations on yields; and recommendations on management measures (such as fish size limits, closed seasons, closed areas and technical measures).

Observer coverage aboard Namibian fishing vessels is provided by the Fisheries Observer Agency (FOA). Observer coverage is 100% in the hake trawl fleet. 7.4.2.2.3 Recognized interest groups Several interest groups that may influence decisions through direct or indirect means have developed over the 10 years of MSC certification. The primary interest groups are the two industry associations, SADSTIA and SECIFA, which represent rights holders (fishing units) in the deep-sea hake trawl fishery. Eligible vessels of SADSTIA and SECIFA members are listed in section 0 of this report. SADSTIA and SECIFA are active in the DAFF Scientific and Resource Management Working Groups, where they participate by imparting up-to-date operational information, assist with decision-making by explaining economic and logistical matters affecting fleets, operations, and markets, and also contribute to the development of mathematical models and the OMP through retaining the services of consultants at OLRAC. SADSTIA and SECIFA manage the operational aspects of the fishing fleet, including a supporting role to DAFF in ensuring that permit conditions are adhered to. The associations fund an independent fisheries observer programme, and additional research projects on recovery from environmental impacts of the trawl fishery, and bycatch mitigation. Other recognized interest groups are as follows: a) Birdlife South Africa (BLSA) - an environmental NGO and the largest bird conservation organization in South Africa. BLSA is the local partner of BirdLife International and a member of the Responsible Fisheries Alliance.

8 Note that DEFF combines the responsibilities of the previous Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF) with those of the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). The decision to make this institutional change was made after the recent national elections and is ongoing. It appears to represent an institutional reform rather than a policy or regulatory change.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 123 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

BLSA initiated an Albatross Task Force team in 2006, and is responsible for drawing up the Bird Mitigation Plans required by fishing vessels in South Africa, in collaboration with the fishing industry; b) Fishing rights holders. Long-term fishing rights (including corresponding share of quota) were allocated in 2008. The deep-sea trawl sector was reduced to 52 rights holders at this time; and there are 17 rights holder in the inshore sub-sector. Inshore hake rights are also linked to sole rights. Represented by SADSTIA and SECIFA. c) Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group, University of Cape Town (MARAM) – mathematical modelling unit that developed the resource assessment models and the OMP for the management of the deep-sea hake trawl fishery. Part-funded by DAFF. d) South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) - responsible for implementing the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004. SANBI coordinates research and monitors the state of biodiversity in South Africa. It provides planning and policy advice and pilots best-practice management models in partnership with stakeholders, in the present case, SADSTIA. SANBI engages in ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation. e) The Responsible Fisheries Alliance (RFA), which provides a forum for environmental NGOs and responsible fishing companies to work together to secure the health of the ecosystems which underpin the business purpose of both sectors. f) The South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON) - a business unit of the National Research Foundation, and accountable to the Department of Science and Technology. SAEON is mandated to detect, predict and react to environmental change within South Africa through long-term observation. SAEONs vision is to deliver long term, reliable data for scientific research and to inform decision making. g) University of Cape Town, Zoology Department – Dr Colin Attwood from this Department provides scientific advice to SADSTIA on bycatch species and its management, and on a benthic trawl experiment to assess recovery / rehabilitation potential. h) World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa (WWFSA) – an environmental NGO group with influence on perceptions of stock status, environmental impacts and management of the fishery; 7.4.2.3 Management objectives 7.4.2.3.1 South Africa Within the South African EEZ, long-term management objectives that guide decision-making and are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach are set out in the MLRA at Article 2. These include objectives relative to Principle 1 (the hake stocks under reassessment), Principle 2 (important bycatch species and the environment) and Principle 3 (the management system). Specific objectives for the management of the South African hake fishery are set out in the current iteration of the Operational Management Plan (OMP). The OMP is kept under review to ensure that it is delivering a sustainable management approach that is precautionary and compatible with the perceived stock status of the two hake species. The objectives of the current version of the OMP are described in detail in section 7.2.1.3 of this report. Long-term objectives are also in place for important by-catch species (i.e. monkfish; kingklip; sole), and where these are identified as being depleted, appropriate management strategies are being developed and implemented to promote/assist rebuilding of affected populations to specified levels within specified timeframes. These include bycatch management areas and PUCLs. Long-term environmental objectives which are relevant to the hake fishery include the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), where the objective is to protect and preserve examples of representative habitat types; and also the very successful initiative to reduce seabird mortality in the trawl fishery. The policy basis for the MPA programme lies in the Convention of Biological Diversity, which aims for the protection of 10% of representative and vulnerable habitats, and the draft South African Ocean Policy which refers to representative MPAs. Biodiversity targets are being developed based on species-area relationships A major objective is maintenance of the trawl footprint, which restricts trawl operations to a limited depth range and area – thus spatially limiting impacts on benthic habitats. Further detail on the management of the fishery in respect of impacts on benthic habitats is provided in section 7.3 of this report. Social and economic objectives include equitable redistribution of fishing rights. Theoretically, a system of long-term fishing rights will provide participants in the fishery with a sense of “ownership” of the resource. Maintaining Marine Stewardship Council certification is an important economic objective related to marketing strategy.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 124 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.4.2.3.2 Namibia Within the Namibian EEZ the objectives for fisheries management are set out in legislation and policy documents. The overall objective of the Marine Resources Act 2000 is to:-

“provide for the conservation of the marine ecosystem and the responsible utilization, conservation, protection and promotion of marine resources on a sustainable basis; for that purpose to provide for the exercise of control over marine resources; and to provide for matters connected therewith.” (Government of Namibia 2000)

The Namibian Marine Resource Policy (MFMR 2004)set out the Government’s commitment to the principle of “optimum sustainable yield in the exploitation of marine resources” and also a commitment that “The precautionary approach to fisheries management shall be applied as appropriate.” This general policy approach is further defined in the MFMR Strategic Plan for the period 2017/18 to 2021/22 (MFMR 2017). This document includes planning matrices which outline annual targets for management and MCS in the hake fishery.

Namibia has had a hake management plan (HMP) in place since 2011. The most recent iteration of the plan was implemented in 2014 (MFMR 2014, The Fish Site 2014), and has 3 main goals: the recovery (to MSY) and long-term sustainability of the hake resource; The reduction of impacts on the ecosystem; and the creation of a stable business environment to promote economic efficiency. The HMP is presently under review. 7.4.3 Fishery-specific management The information presented below relates to the management of the hake fishery within the South African UoA. It does not, therefore, consider the management arrangements in place for the Namibian hake fishery. 7.4.3.1 Decision-making process A Scientific Working Group, constituted by DEFF and comprising scientists from DEFF, MARAM and also observers retained by SADSTIA, recommend a TAC for the fishery given the outcome of an OMP. The OMP is an agreed 4-year management plan and cannot be over-ridden except in exceptional circumstances. A precautionary approach is implicit in the OMP which is designed to promote long-term stock rebuilding, and in the setting of TAC at a level designed to protect the weaker of the two stocks and based on best available information, including logbook information, survey data, and data collected by fisheries observers at sea which is taken into account either as input to the OMP or in the process by which it is developed. The TAC recommendation from the Working Group is considered by the DEFF Chief Directorate for Marine Resource Management. It is then submitted to the Minister for approval. The TAC is then allocated to rights holders, proportionally, according to their share of the rights allocated. Commercial fishing rights are issued to commercial operators by the Government and are periodically renewed. DAFF have established a policy for determining the rights allocation (the Fishing Rights Allocation Process (FRAP)) that was introduced in 2015 and provides the basis for decision-making. The allocation of fishing rights in 2015 for the inshore trawl sector resulted in the allocation of rights to new allocation holders. One of the previous allocation holders applied for an interdict on the decision, and the inshore fishery was subsequently suspended until the dispute was resolved in July 2017. Disputes are initially addressed by DEFF professional staff but may proceed to the Minister, and ultimately to the national judicial system. The latter has been used regarding disputes over allocation of fishing rights for the inshore fleet in recent years. 7.4.3.2 Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) Monitoring, control and surveillance is the responsibility of DEFF, supplemented by the police, navy and customs officers. A brief summary of the key roles and activities is provided below. 7.4.3.2.1 Landings and trade All catches are inspected and weighed at off-loading points by monitors and/or fisheries inspectors to ensure: • remain within their hake quotas and hence the overall TAC (catch, landings and processing records) • that bycatch species do not exceed PUCLs set for each species, and • that no gear or other restrictions had been transgressed or exceeded. Mobile scanners are used to inspect the contents of containers.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 125 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.4.3.2.2 VMS All fishing vessels are tracked in real time through DAFF Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). DEFF have confirmed that these VMS records show that vessels have been fishing exclusively within the trawl footprint for both the offshore (SADSTIA) and inshore (SECIFA) fleets (DAFF 2019g). Example VMS plots for periods during January 2018 are provided below (Figure 10; Figure 11).

Figure 10: VMS Plot for deep-sea trawlers during January 2018. VMS records shown as points, extent of the historical trawl footprint shown as purple-bounded area. (DAFF 2018b)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 126 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Figure 11: VMS Plot for inshore trawlers during January 2018. VMS records shown as points, extent of the historical trawl footprint shown as purple-bounded area. (DAFF 2018c) 7.4.3.2.3 Inspections and audit DEFF aims to carry out compliance audits for 8 of the deep-sea trawl fishery rights holders (SADSTIA), and 16 of the inshore trawl fishery rights holders (SECIFA) each year. Inspections are carried out both at sea and in landing ports. During the current period of MSC certification, some concerns were raised about the level of compliance monitoring in the fishery, which resulted in a recommendation being raised at the first surveillance audit: - “While the current level of performance of the fishery meets the SG80 requirements, the team notes that there have been problems with MCS implementation in recent years. Evidence of effective and ongoing implementation of the MCS measures will be sought at annual surveillance audits” Records of enforcement activity over recent years have been provided to the assessment team, indicating that 131 at- sea inspections were conducted in 2016; 52 in 2017; and 44 in 2018 (DAFF 2017, 2018d, 2019e). DAFF have provided summaries of the transgressions recorded in recent years. Relatively few offences were detected, and most of these were for administrative errors (such as failing to carry a permit aboard a vessel, logbook errors, and failing to “hail in” on one occasion prior to landing). The most recent summary of offences was provided for the year ended December 2017, and a review of the nature of any recent offences will be carried out as part of the re-assessment process. 7.4.3.2.4 Observers Fisheries observers accompany fishing vessels to sea and can do so at any time on request (this is a permit condition). Scientific observers collect data (catch of target and non-target species; interactions with ETP species). The observer system is funded by the client, although DEFF has expressed its commitment to reinstating it as a Government-run initiative. SADSTIA Observer coverage has been increased since first established in 2005, and currently averages around 90 observer days per month (84 days for the SADSTIA fleet and 6 days for SECIFA). The highest coverage was achieved in 2014, when around 9% of fishing trips were monitored, and 8% of the commercial catch was sampled. Since 2013 the SADSTIA observer programme has been extended to include observations of discarded species and bird interactions, initially in relation to the offshore fleet. It aims to monitor the catch and discards from all trawls and bird interactions for one trawl per day during observer trips. The programme has covered around 40% of the trawl footprint annually, and over the period 2005–2016 it has covered nearly the entire area for hake. Since 2013 it has also covered some inshore areas. The South-East Coast Inshore Fishing Association (SECIFA) has started working on the implementation of an observer programme in response to the most recent MSC re-assessment of the hake trawl fishery. The re-assessment generated two conditions requiring better monitoring of interactions with bird species by inshore fishing vessels. A literature review was conducted (Mashao et al, 2016) which concluded that the inshore trawl fishery presented a potential risk to several seabird species, and in particular to Cape gannets. The observer programme currently covers one deployment per month (approximately 6 fishing days) and has been carried out on a trial basis. Further information on the findings of this programme in section 7.3.1.4.5 of this report. 7.4.3.2.5 Vessel protocols and procedures Skippers return logbooks of each trip, detailing fishing effort, catches, and sea-bird fatalities. Offshore vessels have a bird protection plan. 7.4.3.2.6 Sanctions Non-compliance can result in the suspension or loss of fishing rights under Section 28 of the MLRA. An example of a successful Section 28 ruling, followed by the closure and prosecution of a major fishing company, is the case of Hout Bay Fishing. Although not for hake, it was a similar industrial scale fishery targeting lobsters. DEFF officials provide training to the judiciary and prosecuting counsel about fisheries legislation and regulation. About 70% of cases brought by DEFF are successful. 7.4.3.3 Research Planning A research plan is in place for the fishery which identifies priorities so that resources can be targeted appropriately. Research priorities are reviewed by DEFF scientists and the Demersal Working Group (DWG) annually. The research plan includes aspects that relate to P1 (i.e. biomass surveys; ageing; length composition; genetic population structure of M. capensis and M. paradoxus), and P2 (status and biology of retained non-target species; composition of discarded non-target species; benthic habitat surveys; seabird / gear interactions; and diet of hake).

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 127 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Whereas the research plan itself is coherent, strategic and well-conceived, it is sometimes affected by logistical or administrative holdups. For instance, there have been ongoing difficulties with the RV Africana (the main DEFF survey vessel), so that some surveys were cancelled and another vessel, the FV Andromeda, had to be leased to carry out trawl surveys. The inter-calibration issues associated with this have been considered in detail and addressed in the stock assessment. Continuity in the DEFF fisheries observer programme has been affected by administrative issues, and to compensate for this, SADSTIA funds its own observer programme, through an independent service provider. 7.4.3.4 Monitoring and evaluation of management performance Both internal and external review mechanisms exist, which measure progress of the management system against its objectives. The mechanisms include formal Resource Management and Scientific Working Group meetings, auditing of fisheries sectors by the Compliance section, and international stock assessment workshops (see section 7.2.1 of this report). The OMP is integral in providing the primary mechanism for generating consistent management advice for longer term management and a stock rebuilding strategy: the OMP scheduled for review, and since 2006 it has been reviewed every 4 years.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 128 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.4.4 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales As noted in section 7.4.1, it is appropriate to assess the two UoAs for this fishery separately. The deep-water cape hake (Merluccius paradoxus) stock in UoA1 is shared between South African and Namibia, whilst the shallow water cape hake (M. capensis) stock in UoA2 is located within the South African EEZ. The assessment of Governance and Policy for M. paradoxus has to take account of the international management regime, whilst the M. capensis UoA does not. However, both UoAs are confined to the South African EEZ, so only South African management is relevant with regard to fishery-specific management. The scoring for each UoA is set out below.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 129 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.4.4.1 Governance and Policy 7.4.4.1.1 UoA1: Deep water cape hake, Merluccius paradoxus.

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); PI 3.1.1 - 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 Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management There is an effective national There is an effective national There is an effective national legal system and a legal system and organised legal system and binding framework for cooperation and effective cooperation procedures governing a Guide with other parties, where with other parties, where cooperation with other necessary, to deliver necessary, to deliver parties which delivers post management outcomes management outcomes management outcomes consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes No No

Rationale

This SI requires that the legal and customary framework in place is capable of delivering outcomes that are consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 at both the national level, and where necessary at the international level. For M. paradoxus both national and international levels are relevant and are considered here. 1. National legal systems a. South Africa South Africa’s natural environment is governed by a wide range of national legislative acts, including the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996), National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998), the Environmental Conservation Act (No. 73 of 1989) and the Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA; No. 18 of 1998). All fisheries in South Africa are managed in terms of the MLRA and the regulations promulgated in terms of this Act. A summary of national legislation is provided in Table 17). The Department of Environment, Fisheries and Forestry (DEFF) is the authority responsible for implementing the MLRA. Access to commercial fishing is restricted to rights holders, and fishing rights are only allocated after applicants have gone through a sophisticated legal application and screening process. Fishing rights are allocated to applicants that can demonstrate compliance to a set of criteria (i.e. civil obedience; the means to involve in fishing; historical participation). Fisheries regulations are incorporated into a set of permit conditions that are geared towards delivering sustainable fisheries and conserving habitats / ecosystems that support biological resources, in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The regulations are regularly amended to update management measures or implement management strategies based on best scientific advice. Amendments are published in the Government Gazette. b. Namibia Historically up to 1989 the fishery in Namibia was under international management by the International Commission for South East Atlantic Fisheries (ICSEAF). At independence in 1990, the new Namibian government proclaimed a 200 mile EEZ and left ICSEAF, and established its own national fisheries management regime (outlined in section 7.4.2.1.2 of this report and summarised in Table 18). This legislation addresses both the sustainable management of fish stocks (MSC Principle 1) and the marine environment (MSC Principle 2). The primary legislation underpinning the management of marine fisheries in Namibia is the Marine Resources Act, No. 27 of 2000.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 130 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) is the authority responsible for implementing this legislation in Namibia. MFMR grants fishing rights to industry operators and allocates TAC shares (Individual Quotas, IQs) to these rights holders. 2. Cooperation between parties With respect to the framework for cooperation between South Africa and Namibia, both countries are signatories to UNCLOS and UNFSA, each of which explicitly requires their signatories to adopt a precautionary approach to managing both shared fish stocks and the marine environment. Article 8(2) of UNCLOS requires that: - “States shall enter into consultations in good faith and without delay, particularly where there is evidence that the straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks concerned may be under threat of over- exploitation or where a new fishery is being developed for such stocks”. A framework for cooperation between South Africa and Namibia is provided by the Benguela Current Convention (BCC), which was agreed between South Africa, Namibia and Angola in 2013 (see section 7.4.2.1.2 of this report). Under the auspices of the BCC, South Africa and Namibia have been working together to achieve a better understanding of stock structure and dynamics (Benguela Current Commission 2017a, 2017b, Rademeyer and Butterworth 2017). In January 2019 the governments of South Africa and Namibia also signed a fisheries Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which outlined how they will work together to develop stock assessments and management arrangements for shared stocks, as well as joint patrols for monitoring, control and surveillance (DAFF 2019f). With regard to research, this MoU states that specialised joint working groups should be formed for shared marine resources, and also plan to carry out surveys and biological analysis. Further, under Article 7 on data and information that both parties will maintain systems for data collection etc “in accordance with each parties laws and regulations”. Further 7 (3) states that “A party will, upon on request, expeditiously provide data and information including electronic means to the other\Party, through the Ministry responsible for fisheries and marine resources”. 3. Summary and conclusions At the national level, the legal systems in both South Africa and Namibia provides for both sustainable management of fish stocks and the marine environment (see Table 17 & Table 18). In both countries there is an enforceable national legal system in place that is both effective and designed to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 & 2. This meets the requirements for SG60, 80 and 100 with respect to the national legal system. Both South Africa and Namibia are signatories to UNCLOS, UNFSA and the Benquela Current Convention. These international agreements provide a general commitment to cooperate in the management of fish stocks and the marine environment. The recent agreement of a MoU between both countries takes this a step further and establishes a framework for cooperation, particularly with respect to sharing information and assessing shared resources. Overall, therefore, it is considered that the national legal system in place in both South Africa and Namibia is compatible with the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for this SI; that international cooperation is compatible with the SG60 requirements; and that the national and international regime is designed to deliver management outcomes consistent with both MSC Principles 1 and 2. The framework for international cooperation in place at present is consistent with the normative requirements set out in the MSC FCR at SG60 and in SA4.3.2.2 & 4.3.2.3. It is also clear that the MoU agreed between South Africa and Namibia is a statement of intent to meet the requirements of UNFSA Article 10 with respect to collecting and sharing data, the scientific assessment of stock status and the development of scientific advice. On this basis, it is considered appropriate to score this SI at 60 and raise a condition of certification to support the further development of the system for international cooperation between South Africa and Namibia. Resolution of disputes The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by b law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent Guide resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the resolution mechanism for the resolution arising within the system. of legal disputes which is of legal disputes that is post considered to be effective appropriate to the context of in dealing with most issues the fishery and has been and that is appropriate to the tested and proven to be context of the UoA. effective.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 131 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Met? Yes No No

Rationale

1. National level a. South Africa Any disputes within the system are first discussed directly with DEFF resource managers but can proceed to ministerial level. Beyond ministerial level, disputes may be resolved in court, within the national judicial system. In recent years, major disputes have regularly been resolved through legal challenges – for instance the 2015 dispute regarding the allocations of fishing rights for the inshore fishery, which was ultimately resolved in 2017. The opportunity to mount a legal challenge to the system is seen as a positive aspect, demonstrating a well- developed and fully tested process of dispute resolution, the outcomes of which reflects legislative compliance. DEFF has access to a strong legal team, the purpose of which is to review legislative issues and deal with challenges. The dispute resolution process (both internally and through the courts) is appropriate to the context of the fishery. b. Namibia At the national level the management system is subject to law and there is a dispute mechanism for all UoAs. For example, Namibia has gone through several rights’ allocation processes (and is currently involved in a rights allocation) which have in the past been legally challenged and stood legal scrutiny effectively. 2. International level As noted in the scoring of SIa above, there is now considered to be an international dimension to the management of the Benguela M. paradoxus stock. There is no international fisheries management agreement in place for the shared stock(s) under which legal disputes could either arise or be resolved; both Namibian and South African hake fisheries are still managed under the established status quo as independent stocks. The Benguela Current Convention (at Articles 2 & 4) and the recently agreed Memorandum of Understanding for fisheries provide mechanisms which could provide the basis for resolving transboundary issues if this proves necessary. 3. Summary and conclusions The dispute resolution processes that are in place at the national levels in South Africa and Namibia meet the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements because they are transparent, appropriate and have been tested and proven to be effective. At the international level the Benguela Current Convention provides a mechanism for resolving disputes between parties, and the recently agreed MoU demonstrates the commitment of South African and Namibian Governments to developing joint management of shared fishery resources. The SG60 requirements are therefore considered to be met by the international aspect of the management system. There has not yet been an opportunity for the system to be applied to any disputes in this (or comparable) fish stocks, so it is not possible to evaluate its effectiveness with respect to the SG80 and SG100 requirements.

Respect for rights The management system has The management system has The management system has a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the a mechanism to formally respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or c Guide established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of post people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

1. South Africa

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 132 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Customary rights or traditional dependence on the fishery for food or livelihood cannot be demonstrated for the hake fishery, which has only been prosecuted since the advent of mechanical trawling in the early 20th century. There is a policy to redress historical disadvantage in the fisheries sector as a whole, within an appropriate legal framework. The mechanism to commit to legal rights is well-developed, as illustrated by an open and transparent process of rights allocations, which takes place within the legal and political framework. Legal rights to commercial fishing are explicitly vested in “Fishing Rights”. These are only allocated by the Management Authority after applicants have gone through a sophisticated legal application and screening process. Fishing rights are allocated to applicants that can demonstrate compliance to a set of criteria (i.e. civil obedience; the means to involve in fishing; historical participation). A pre-determined allocation key is used by DAFF to assign fishing rights to different sectors (see section 7.2.2 of this report), which includes an allocation of 1.5% of the TAC to any subsistence fishers who may catch hake. Rights holders are aware of management legal requirements through a clearly documented and communicated mechanism. The granting of fishing rights formally commits the rights holder and the Management Authority to a consistent system of fisheries management, guided by the MLRA, regulations and permit conditions. 2. Namibia As in South Africa, customary rights or traditional dependence on the fishery for food or livelihood cannot be demonstrated for the hake fishery, which has only been prosecuted since the advent of mechanical trawling in the early 20th century. The management system in Namibia allocates fishing rights preferentially to Namibians and Namibian owned companies through a formal legal process (MFMR 2013). 3. Summary and conclusions The management system formally commits to legal rights, created explicitly, and consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles. The SG60, SG 80 and SG100 requirements are therefore all met.

References (MLRA 1998, Government of Namibia 2000, 2001, Benguela Current Commission 2013, 2014, 2017a, 2017b, Field et al. 2013, MFMR 2013, 2014, Rademeyer and Butterworth 2017, DAFF 2019f) Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 133 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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 Roles and responsibilities Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals involved in the management involved in the management involved in the management process have been identified. process have been identified. process have been identified. a Guide Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and post responsibilities are generally responsibilities are explicitly responsibilities are explicitly understood. defined and well defined and well understood for key areas of understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. responsibility and interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

1. National level a. South Africa The Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Forestry (DEFF) is the relevant Management Authority, and within this organization, the relevant Chief Directorates are for: (a) Monitoring Control and Compliance - to ensure that fish resources are protected through effective and efficient utilisation of the Fisheries Protection Vessels and other relevant equipment and systems; and to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Marine Living Resources Act of 1998. (b) Marine Resources Management - to ensure the sustainable utilization and equitable and orderly access to nearshore, offshore and High Seas fisheries resources through improved management and regulation. (c) Fisheries Research and Development - to provide scientific research and advice on fisheries resources. The DEFF structure is supplemented by other national organs, e.g. Monitoring Control and Surveillance are assisted by customs, police/navy and provincial authorities, but the process is coordinated by DAFF. Two working groups within DEFF deal with all aspects of the hake trawl fishery, namely a Scientific Working Group, and a Resource Management Working Group. These working groups are appropriate for, respectively, guiding the science underlying management strategies (i.e. development of mathematical models; Operational Management Procedures) and for implementing management through official interaction between DAFF fisheries managers and representatives of the fishing industry. The functions, roles and responsibilities of the scientific and management working groups are clearly defined. b. Namibia There is a clearly defined management process related to Namibian fisheries in general, and also specifically to the hake fishery. The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) is responsible for fisheries management within the Namibian EEZ. The Ministry is advised by the National Marine Information Resource Centre (NatMIRC), which provides information on stock status. Industrial bodies participate in scientific working groups and a Marine Resource Advisory Council (MRAC). NGOs and other organisations are engaged in resource assessment processes. As Namibian fisheries are a significant component of the Namibian economy, labour unions are engaged in decision-making processes, in particular at the Advisory Council level (of which membership is specified in the Fisheries Act). The functions, roles and responsibilities of organisation in the management process for key areas is explicitly defined under the prevailing governance regime (for fisheries and the country as a whole) for all areas of responsibility and interaction.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 134 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

2. International level At the international level the key management organisation relevant to the fishery is the Benguela Current Commission. The function, roles and responsibilities of the Commission are determined by the Benguela Current Convention and are described on the Convention website. The basis for interaction between South Africa and Namibia in the field of shared fisheries management is set out in the recently agreed bilateral Memorandum of Understanding. 3. Summary & Conclusions Organisations and individuals involved in the formal management process have been clearly identified and functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined for all areas of responsibility and interaction in national legislation and also by international agreements, thus achieving the SG60, 80 & 100 requirements for this SI.

Consultation processes The management system The management system The management system includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant b Guide the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local post including local knowledge, to knowledge. The management knowledge. The management inform the management system demonstrates system demonstrates system. consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale 1. National level a. South Africa Consultation takes place at various levels, including the Scientific and Resource Management working groups mentioned in 3.1.2(a). The main role players in the consultation process are DAFF, SADSTIA and SECIFA – the industry associations are active in the DAFF Scientific and Resource Management Working Groups, as members of the MWG and observers at the SWG. At these meetings, they participate by imparting up-to-date operational information, assist with decision-making by explaining economic and logistical matters affecting fleets, operations, and markets, and also contribute to the development of mathematical models and the OMP through retaining the services of consultants at OLRAC. Decisions and recommendations made at working groups are based on best available information and long-term policy, and are debated within these fora, where industry associations are represented; thus, it demonstrates consideration of information provided and explains how it is used or not used. Over the 15 years of MSC certification of the fishery, the consultation process has expanded greatly, and interested and affected parties that may influence decisions through direct or indirect consultations (i.e. through SADSTIA), or provide information, or act as stakeholders to encourage change in fishing methods (for instance the introduction of tori, or bird-scaring lines on trawl warps) include WWF, BLSA, SANBI, SAEON and retained scientists (UCT) or fisheries observers (CapFish). b. Namibia Management of the Namibian hake fisheries includes broad consultation through an agreed process (see SIa above). This management process is regular, structured, addresses issues as they arise in an interactive process, particularly relating to engagement with the fishing industry. The engagement process involves consultation with fishers and as needed with labour unions, and views and opinions taken into consideration. Challenges to the management system are common and accepted practice. This process is transparent, and management is accountable and provides explanations on the use of the information provided. 2. International level As noted in the scoring of PI 3.1.1, the management system for the hake fishery at the international level is not yet established, so it is not yet possible to assess how this will seek and accept relevant information. However, it is clear that processes have been established by the BCC for seeking and accepting information which have led to

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 135 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

these nascent fishery management arrangements; the ECOFISH report and supporting information explains how this information has been used. 3. Summary & Conclusions The management system and the national level in South Africa includes wide consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, and demonstrates how it is used, or not, at various levels, including at formal working groups. A similar process is in place in Namibia. These national management systems include consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, and demonstrate its consideration, meeting the SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements. At the international level there is less evidence of consultation, but the wide engagement in the recent ECOFISH report on hake stock structure demonstrates that there is a system in place which seeks and accepts relevant information and also explains how it is used. Overall, the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are met by the national and international consultation processes in place.

Participation The consultation process The consultation process provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and Guide interested and affected encouragement for all c parties to be involved. interested and affected post parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

1. National level a. South Africa Opportunities for all interested parties to be engaged in consultation processes are provided in South Africa by both the Working Groups for the fishery and through formal consultations on management proposals. Examples of outcomes resulting from effective consultations include the reduction in bird mortalities, benthic habitat experiments, trawl footprint, and PUCLs for main bycatch species. The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, often through NGOs (WWF, BLSA, SANBI, SAEON) participating as observers at working groups. b. Namibia Fishers, the recognized fishing industry industrial bodies, labour and other stakeholders including. NGOs are engaged in the management process through scientific working groups, the MRAC (Advisory Council) and other forums effectively facilitating engagement. 2. International level Examples of how consultation processes have provided an opportunity for stakeholder engagement in the international management of the fishery are provided by the activities of the Benguela Current Commission (BCC). These include routine participation by contracting parties in the BCC demersal working group, and also through discrete project. The BCC “ECOFISH” project has examined the relationship between South African and Namibian hake stocks; and the BCC “BCLME III” project is working to improve governance in the Benguela Large Marine Ecosystem in partnership with the UN Development Programme These projects facilitate stakeholder engagement through workshops which secured wide involvement for all interested and affected parties. 3. Summary & conclusions At the national level, in South Africa and Namibia there are arrangements in place for securing wide involvement in the management process. These provide an opportunity for all interested parties to be involved (meeting SG80) and also facilitate the involvement of these and other affected parties, meeting the SG100 requirements. At the international level, there is some recent evidence which shows that opportunities for stakeholders to participate in management discussions are provided, meeting the SG80 requirements; and these opportunities are open to all parties and are facilitated, meeting SG100.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 136 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

The SG80 and SG100 requirements are therefore met.

References (MLRA 1998, Government of Namibia 2000, 2001, MFMR 2004, 2014, 2017, Benguela Current Commission 2013, 2017a, 2017b, 2018, 2019b, 2019a, Field et al. 2013, The Fish Site 2014) Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 137 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Long-term objectives to guide Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives decision-making, consistent that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, Guide with the MSC Fisheries consistent with MSC consistent with MSC a Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the post precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

1. National level a. South Africa The long-term management policy for South African fisheries rests on two main objectives: optimization of long- term social and economic benefits to the nation; and promotion of sustainable utilization and the replenishment of living marine resources. The latter includes objectives that are consistent with the Principles and Criteria of the MSC. Relative to Principle 1, the long-term objective is to maintain stocks at a level above MSY or ensure their recovery to this level. To achieve this, decision making is based on the outputs of an appropriate OMP, that responds to measures of stock changes on an annual basis and is geared to achieve the above stock rebuilding. The OMP incorporates the precautionary approach, in that it will output a more conservative TAC in the event of future data indicating that higher risk scenarios are more likely to reflect the actual situation. For Principle 2, long-term objectives are in place for important by-catch species (i.e. monkfish; kingklip; sole; horse mackerel), and where these species are identified as being depleted, appropriate management strategies have been or are being developed and implemented to promote/assist rebuilding of affected populations to specified levels within specified timeframes. Long-term environmental objectives include the establishment of Marine Protected Areas, to protect and preserve examples of representative habitat types from trawling. The policy basis for the MPA programme lies in the Convention of Biological Diversity, which aims for the protection of 10% of representative and vulnerable habitats, and the draft South African Ocean Policy which refers to representative MPAs. Biodiversity targets are being developed based on species-area relationships. b. Namibia The long-term objectives for Namibian fisheries are set out in the broader objectives of the Fisheries Management Act, Fisheries policy and in strategic planning for fisheries. Namibian fisheries policy emphasises the need for sustainable fisheries. The strategic planning states this but does not explicitly refer to the Precautionary Approach (PA), neither does the Fisheries Act. However, in the White Paper on policy section 5.1.5 (MFMR 2004) it states that the PA to fisheries management shall be applied as appropriate. 2. International level The key international agreement that is relevant to this fishery is the Benguela Current Convention (BCC) which sets out clear long-term objectives in its Articles (see section 7.4.2.1.3 of this report). These are set out in the Objective of the BCC (Article 2) and its General Principles (Article 4). These take account of the precautionary principle (Article 4(1)(a); and also require the parties to the convention to take actions in a range of areas that are consistent with the MSC Fisheries Standard (Article 4(2)), including protecting the marine ecosystem against any

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 138 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

adverse impacts; applying management measures based on the best scientific advice available; where possible reversing and preventing habitat alteration & destruction; and protecting vulnerable species and biological diversity. In addition to the Convention, the Benguela Current Commission has also developed the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem Strategic Action Programme for 2015-19 which is ongoing and includes different programmes including the harmonisation of governance instruments applied to fisheries. The recently agreed MoU between South Africa and Namibia provides evidence of national Governments’ commitment to long-term objectives that are consistent with the MSC Fisheries Standard. One of the stated objectives of this MoU is that it “…represents an agreement between the two neighbouring countries to work together in various matters within the fisheries space as the two countries share a common border”. 3. Summary & Conclusions Clear and explicit long-term objectives are in place in both national and international policies and legislation that is relevant to this stock. The existence of these objectives meets the SG60 requirements for this SI; and the fact that they are clearly and explicitly stated meets the SG80 requirements. It is not, however, clear that these objectives are required by national or international management policies, so SG100 is not considered to be met.

References

(United Nations 1992, MLRA 1998, MFMR 2004, 2014, 2017, NEMA 2004, Benguela Current Commission 2013, 2014, DEA 2018, SANBI et al. 2019)

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 139 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.4.4.1.2 UoA2: Shallow water cape hake, Merluccius capensis.

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: - Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); PI 3.1.1 - 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 Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management There is an effective national There is an effective national There is an effective national legal system and a legal system and organised legal system and binding framework for cooperation and effective cooperation procedures governing a Guide with other parties, where with other parties, where cooperation with other necessary, to deliver necessary, to deliver parties which delivers post management outcomes management outcomes management outcomes consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes Yes NA

Rationale

1. National legal system South Africa’s natural environment is governed by a wide range of national legislative acts, including the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996), National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998), the Environmental Conservation Act (No. 73 of 1989) and the Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA; No. 18 of 1998). All fisheries in South Africa are managed in terms of the MLRA and the regulations promulgated in terms of this Act. The Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) is the authority responsible for implementing the MLRA, and it is committed to international law (UNCLOS; UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) and a precautionary approach is prescribed when uncertainty prevails. South Africa is a signatory to the Convention on Biodiversity, MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships), the London Convention (regulating the dumping of waste at sea), Bonn Convention (conservation of migratory species, incl. seabirds), SEAFO (SE Atlantic Fisheries Organization) and is member of ICCAT. The Management Authority is aware of relevant conventions and there are no specific conventions relevant to the hake fishery. Access to commercial fishing is restricted to rights holders, and fishing rights are only allocated after applicants have gone through a sophisticated legal application and screening process. Fishing rights are allocated to applicants that can demonstrate compliance to a set of criteria (i.e. civil obedience; the means to involve in fishing; historical participation). Fisheries regulations are incorporated into a set of permit conditions that are geared towards delivering sustainable fisheries and conserving habitats / ecosystems that support biological resources, in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The regulations are regularly amended to update management measures or implement management strategies based on best scientific advice. Amendments are published in the Government Gazette. 2. Cooperation between parties The available evidence is that the M. capensis stock in South African waters is located entirely within the South African EEZ. Cooperation with other parties is thus “not necessary”. 3. Summary and conclusions

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 140 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

There is an effective national legal system in place for this UoA which sets out effective, clear and binding procedures that deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 & 2. This national aspect of the management system meets the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for this SI. With respect to cooperation with other parties, the SG60 and SG80 requirements have an “if necessary” qualifier. International cooperation is not needed for this UoA, so these requirements are met. SG100 does not have the “if necessary” qualifier and is thus mandatory. In the absence of international cooperation (even though it is not necessary) SG100 cannot be met.. Overall, a score of 80 is considered to be appropriate for this UoA (requirements for national laws and international cooperation are met at SG60 and SG80; national laws meet the SG100 requirements, but international cooperation does not meet the SG100 requirements).

Resolution of disputes The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent b Guide resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the resolution mechanism for the resolution arising within the system. of legal disputes which is of legal disputes that is post considered to be effective appropriate to the context of in dealing with most issues the fishery and has been and that is appropriate to the tested and proven to be context of the UoA. effective. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

1. National level Disputes within the system are first discussed directly with DAFF resource managers but can proceed to ministerial level. Beyond ministerial level, disputes may be resolved in court, within the national judicial system. In recent years, major disputes have regularly been resolved through legal challenges – for instance the 2015 dispute regarding the allocations of fishing rights for the inshore fishery, which was ultimately resolved in 2017. The opportunity to mount a legal challenge to the system is seen as a positive aspect, demonstrating a well- developed and fully tested process of dispute resolution, the outcomes of which reflects legislative compliance. DAFF has access to a strong legal team, the purpose of which is to review legislative issues and deal with challenges. The dispute resolution process (both internally and through the courts) is appropriate to the context of the fishery. 2. International level As noted for SIa above, this UoA is located entirely within the South African EEZ so the international aspect of dispute resolution is not relevant here. 3. Summary and conclusions The dispute resolution processes that are in place at the national level meet the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements because they are transparent, appropriate to the context of the fishery, and have been tested and proven to be effective.

Respect for rights The management system has The management system has The management system has a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the a mechanism to formally respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights c created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or Guide established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of post people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 141 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Customary rights or traditional dependence on the fishery for food or livelihood cannot be demonstrated for the hake fishery, which has only been prosecuted since the advent of mechanical trawling in the early 20th century. Nevertheless, there is a policy to redress historical disadvantage in the fisheries sector, within an appropriate legal framework. The mechanism to commit to legal rights is well-developed, as illustrated by an open and transparent process of rights allocations, which takes place within the legal and political framework. Legal rights to commercial fishing are explicitly vested in so-called “Fishing Rights”. These are only allocated by the Management Authority after applicants have gone through a sophisticated legal application and screening process. Fishing rights are allocated to applicants that can demonstrate compliance to a set of criteria (i.e. civil obedience; the means to involve in fishing; historical participation). A pre-determined allocation key is used by DAFF to assign fishing rights to different sectors (see section 7.2.2 of this report), which includes an allocation of 1.5% of the TAC to any subsistence fishers who may catch hake. Rights holders are aware of management legal requirements through a clearly documented and communicated mechanism. The granting of fishing rights formally commits the rights holder and the Management Authority to a consistent system of fisheries management, guided by the MLRA, regulations and permit conditions. The management system formally commits to legal rights, created explicitly, and consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles. The SG60, SG 80 and SG100 guidelines are therefore all met.

References MARINE LIVING RESOURCES ACT 18 OF 1998; REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF THE MARINE LIVING RESOURCES ACT, 1998; South Africa Environment Outlook: A Report on the State of the Environment (2006); Field et al, 2013.

(MLRA 1998, Benguela Current Commission 2013, 2014, 2017a, 2017b, Field et al. 2013, Rademeyer and Butterworth 2017, DAFF 2019f) Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 142 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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 Roles and responsibilities Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals Organisations and individuals involved in the management involved in the management involved in the management process have been identified. process have been identified. process have been identified. a Guide Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and post responsibilities are generally responsibilities are explicitly responsibilities are explicitly understood. defined and well defined and well understood for key areas of understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. responsibility and interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

1. National level DAFF is the relevant Management Authority, and within this organization, the relevant Chief Directorates are for: (a) Monitoring Control and Compliance - to ensure that fish resources are protected through effective and efficient utilisation of the Fisheries Protection Vessels and other relevant equipment and systems; and to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Marine Living Resources Act of 1998. (b) Marine Resources Management - to ensure the sustainable utilization and equitable and orderly access to nearshore, offshore and High Seas fisheries resources through improved management and regulation. (c) Fisheries Research and Development - to provide scientific research and advice on fisheries resources. The DAFF structure is supplemented by other national organs, e.g. Monitoring Control and Surveillance are assisted by customs, police/navy and provincial authorities, but the process is coordinated by DAFF. At least two formally constituted working groups within DAFF deal with all aspects of the hake trawl fishery, namely a Scientific Working Group, and a Resource Management Working Group. These working groups are appropriate for guiding the science underlying management strategies (i.e. development of mathematical models; Operational Management Procedures) and for implementing management through official interaction between DAFF fisheries managers and representatives of the fishing industry. The functions, roles and responsibilities of the scientific and management working groups are clearly defined. 2. International level At the international level the key management organisation relevant to the fishery is the Benguela Current Commission. The function, roles and responsibilities of the Commission are determined by the Benguela Current Convention and are described on the Convention website. The basis for interaction between South Africa and Namibia in the field of shared fisheries management is set out in the recently agreed bilateral Memorandum of Understanding. 3. Summary & Conclusions Organisations and individuals involved in the formal management process have been clearly identified and functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined for all areas of responsibility and interaction, thus achieving the SG60, 80 & 100 requirements for this SI. b Consultation processes

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 143 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

The management system The management system The management system includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant Guide the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local post including local knowledge, to knowledge. The management knowledge. The management inform the management system demonstrates system demonstrates system. consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

1. National level Consultation takes place at various levels, including the Scientific and Resource Management working groups mentioned in 3.1.2(a). The main role players in the consultation process are DAFF, SADSTIA and SECIFA – the industry associations are active in the DAFF Scientific and Resource Management Working Groups, as members or observers. At these meetings, they participate by imparting up-to-date operational information, assist with decision-making by explaining economic and logistical matters affecting fleets, operations, and markets, and also contribute to the development of mathematical models and the OMP through retaining the services of consultants at OLRAC. Decisions and recommendations made at working groups are based on best available information and long-term policy, and are debated within these fora, where industry associations are represented; thus, it demonstrates consideration of information provided and explains how it is used or not used. Over the 10 years of MSC certification of the fishery, the consultation process has expanded greatly, and interested and affected parties that may influence decisions through direct or indirect consultations (i.e. through SADSTIA), or provide information, or act as pressure groups to bring about change in fishing methods (for instance the introduction of tori, or bird-scaring lines on trawl warps) include WWF, BLSA, SANBI, SAEON and retained scientists (UCT) or fisheries observers (CapFish). 2. International level As noted in the scoring of PI3.1.1, the management system for the fishery at the international level is not yet established, so it is not yet possible to assess how this will seek and accept relevant information. However, it is clear that processes have been established by the BCC for seeking and accepting information which have led to these nascent fishery management arrangements; the ECOFISH report and supporting information explains how this information has been used. 3. Summary & Conclusions The management system and the national level in South Africa includes wide consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, and demonstrates how it is used, or not, at various levels, including at formal working groups. At the international level there is less evidence of consultation, but the wide engagement in the ECOFISH report demonstrates that there is a system in place which seeks and accepts relevant information and also explains how it is used. Overall, the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are met by the national and international consultation processes in place.

Participation The consultation process The consultation process provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and Guide interested and affected encouragement for all c parties to be involved. interested and affected post parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Yes Yes

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 144 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Rationale

1. National level Examples of outcomes resulting from effective consultations include the reduction in bird mortalities, benthic habitat experiments, trawl footprint, and PUCLs for main bycatch species. The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, often through NGOs (WWF, BLSA, SANBI, SAEON), or as observers at working groups. 2. International level As noted above the only real opportunity for stakeholder engagement in the international management of the fishery has been through the ECOFISH project which examined the relationship between South African and Namibian hake stocks. This project facilitated stakeholder engagement through workshops which secured wide involvement. 3. Summary & conclusions At the national level, there are tried & tested arrangements in place for securing wide involvement in the management process. At the international level, the evidence to date also shows that opportunities for stakeholders to participate in management discussions are provided and facilitated. The SG80 and SG100 requirements are therefore met.

References

(MLRA 1998, Benguela Current Commission 2013, 2017a, 2017b, 2019b, 2019a, Field et al. 2013)

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 145 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Long-term objectives to guide Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives decision-making, consistent that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, Guide with the MSC Fisheries consistent with MSC consistent with MSC a Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the post precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

1. National level The long-term management policy for South African fisheries rests on two main objectives: optimization of long- term social and economic benefits to the nation; and promotion of sustainable utilization and the replenishment of living marine resources. The latter includes objectives that are consistent with the Principles and Criteria of the MSC. At policy level, the allocation of long-term fishing rights provides an incentive to successful applicants to view the resource as a long-term asset – thus a strong motivation to ensure its sustainability. Relative to Principle 1, the long-term objective is stock recovery to a pre-defined level. To achieve this, decision making is based on the outputs of an appropriate OMP, that responds to measures of stock changes on an annual basis and is geared to achieve the above stock rebuilding. The OMP incorporates the precautionary approach, in that it will output a more conservative TAC in the event of higher risk scenarios. For Principle 2, long-term objectives are in place for important by-catch species (i.e. monkfish; kingklip; sole), and where these species are identified as being depleted, appropriate management strategies are being developed and implemented to promote/assist rebuilding of affected populations to specified levels within specified timeframes. Long-term environmental objectives include the establishment of Marine Protected Areas, to protect and preserve examples of representative habitat types from trawling. The policy basis for the MPA programme lies in the Convention of Biological Diversity, which aims for the protection of 10% of representative and vulnerable habitats, and the draft South African Ocean Policy which refers to representative MPAs. Biodiversity targets are being developed based on species-area relationships. 2. International level The key international agreement that is relevant to this fishery is the Benguela Current Convention which sets out clear long-term objectives in its Articles (see section 7.4.2.1.3 of this report). These are set out in the Objective of the BCC (Article 2) and its General Principles (Article 4). These take account of the precautionary principle (Article 4(1)(a); and also require the parties to the convention to take actions in a range of areas that are consistent with the MSC Fisheries Standard (Article 4(2)), including protecting the marine ecosystem against any adverse impacts; applying management measures based on the best scientific advice available; where possible reversing and preventing habitat alteration & destruction; and protecting vulnerable species and biological diversity. In addition to the Convention, the Benguela Current Commission has also developed the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem Strategic Action Programme for 2015-19 which is ongoing and includes different programmes including the harmonisation of governance instruments applied to fisheries. The recently agreed Memorandum of Understanding between South Africa and Namibia provides evidence of national Governments’ commitment to this policy. 3. Summary & Conclusions

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 146 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Decision-making at both the national and international level is guided and by clear and explicit long-term objectives, which are both required by management policy and are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach. These objectives meet the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements for this PI.

References

(United Nations 1992, MLRA 1998, NEMA 2004, Benguela Current Commission 2013, 2014, DEA 2018, SANBI et al. 2019)

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 147 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

7.4.4.2 Fishery- specific management (both UoAs)

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Objectives Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving the objectives, which are Guide expressed by MSC’s outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent with a Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes post implicit within the fishery- explicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles specific management system. specific management system. 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Yes Yes Partial

Rationale

As noted previously (section 7.4.4), the “Fishery-specific management” PIs (3.2.x) examine only the fishery-specific management context (GSA4.7) within which the UoAs operate (i.e. within the South African EEZ). There has been no major change to the foundations of the fishery-specific management objectives since the re- assessment of the fishery in 2015. The findings of the assessment team at that assessment are reproduced below. For Principle 1, short and long-term objectives are to achieve stock recovery to a pre-determined level, to ensure long-term sustainability of the hake resource, and to facilitate operational stability within the fishing sector. Stock rebuilding has progressed significantly since a low-point in 2007. Stock changes are measurable through a set of abundance indices, and these form the input to an OMP, which is used to recommend annual adjustments in the TAC, aiming towards a specified rebuilding goal. The SG100 guidepost is achieved, as it can be explicitly demonstrated that outcomes expressed in Principle 1 are being achieved. In relation to MSC Principle 2, objectives are contained in the MLRA, and several other national acts and policy documents. They deal with retained and discarded bycatches of the trawl fishery, seabird mortalities, protection and preservation of examples of representative habitats, and recovery of areas that have historically been affected by trawling. The Principle 2 objectives are not always clear in management systems, for instance, there is no time-scale or stated goal regarding the recovery of habitat impacts. The SG60, 80 and 100 requirements are fully met with respect to MSC Principle 1. For Principle 2, the SG60 and 80 requirements are fully met by the explicit short and long term objectives in place for Principle 2 components. The fact that some of the Principle 2 objectives are generic, and that aims are not always well defined or set against time scales, prevents all SG100 of being achieved. SG100 is therefore partially met (Principle 1 meets SG100; Principle 2 does not). A score of 90 is therefore appropriate. These conclusions will be reviewed following the site visit at this re-assessment.

References

(MLRA 1998, Field et al. 2013) Sections 7.2 & 7.3 of this report.

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 148 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 149 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Decision-making processes There are some decision- There are established a Guide making processes in place decision-making processes that result in measures and that result in measures and post strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

There are two key decision-making processes that are relevant to the hake trawl fishery: the process for determining and allocating the annual TAC; and the process for allocating fishing rights to operators. Both are considered here. 1. TAC Determination & Allocation A Scientific Working Group (SWG), comprising scientists from DAFF, MARAM and those retained by SADSTIA provide annual management recommendations, based on the output of an OMP. This recommendation is considered by the Resource Management Group, taking into account factors such as legislation, socio-economics, EAF, and stock advice. It is then submitted to the decision maker (normally the Minister) in line with Departmental protocols. The OMP (which already contains consideration of socio-economic factors) cannot be over-ridden unless in “exceptional circumstances” (under Section 61 of the MLRA). The OMP is agreed and set for a 4-year period. After signature by the Minister, the TAC is allocated to rights holders, proportionally, according to their share of the rights allocated. A DAFF fisheries manager dedicated to the hake fishery then meets with industry to prepare annual fishing plans and prepare permit conditions. 2. Fishing rights allocation Under the Marine Living Resources Act, only persons issued with commercial fishing permits may harvest hake in either the inshore of deep-sea fisheries. The number of permits issued for the hake fishery is limited. The most recent fishing rights allocation took place in the period 2015-16 for the inshore trawl fishery. The policies and procedures for allocating the rights was set out explicitly in subordinate legislation made under the MLRA, including the sector-specific Policy on the Allocation and Management of Commercial Fishing Rights in the Hake Inshore Trawl Fishery, 2015. This policy addresses the granting of fishing rights, the allocation of quota to rights holders, and participation in the fishing industry by Historically Disadvantaged Individuals. Other relevant policy documents that determined the decision-making framework for fishing rights allocation include the General Policy on the Allocation and Management of Fishing Rights 2013, and other relevant sector specific policies including the Policy for the Small Scale Fisheries Sector in South Africa 2012 and the Policy for the Transfer of Commercial Fishing right 2009. It is noted that the rights allocation for the inshore hake trawl fishery resulted in a dispute in 2016. This is considered further under Scoring Issue e for this Performance Indicator. Preparations are underway for the re-allocation of fishing rights for the deep-sea hake trawl fishery, which are due to expire at the end of 2020. An announcement on the start of the Fishing Rights Allocation Process 2020 (FRAP 2020) was issued by DAFF in 2018 (DAFF 2018a). The Government has recently suspended this process, has abolished the “Fisheries Transformation Council” that was established in 2017, and has invited nominations to re- establish a “Consultative Advisory Forum” to advise the Minister on this and other areas of fisheries management (DEFF 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). The fishing industry has welcomed this most recent set of announcements on the basis that it will strengthen the decision making process (FiskerForum 2019).

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 150 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

3. Summary & conclusions The decision-making processes for both the determination of the TAC and the allocation of fishing rights in the hake fishery are well-established. These processes result in measures and strategies to achieve fishery-specific objectives – therefore it meets the SG80 requirements.

Responsiveness of decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes respond to serious issues respond to serious and respond to all issues identified in relevant other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, identified in relevant research, monitoring, b Guide evaluation and consultation, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, post in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Decision-making processes has responded to the main issues affecting the fishery, such as provision of scientific information for assessment processes, assessment structure, rights allocations, stock rebuilding, bird mortalities, and monitoring and enforcement. Responses have taken account of wider implications (i.e. impact of stock depletion on economics and ecosystems) and have been transparent (through working groups and publishing outcomes), adaptive (new technologies implemented, i.e. tori lines) and timely (TAC schedule; research surveys). These factors satisfy the SG60 and SG80 requirements. There have been hiccups in the government decision-making process, such as the lapse of the government funded observer programme; the absence of the RV Africana – this vessel is the mainstay of the annual biomass surveys. Fortunately, SADSTIA provided acceptable replacements in both the mentioned cases (i.e. SADSTIA Observer programme; and the use of the FV Andromeda to replace Africana), thus indicating a robust fishery-specific management system, when supported by industry. More recently it is understood that there have been difficulties in securing Government funding for MARAM, the group that carries out the stock assessment and OMP development for the fishery. Again, SADSTIA has provided support for this process. This means that the SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. The lapse in the observer programme, and historical issues concerning the operation of RV Africana coupled with the more recent funding issues affecting MARAM indicates that the government could not respond adequately to ALL issues, and therefore SG100 was not fully justified.

Use of precautionary approach Decision-making processes c Guide use the precautionary post approach and are based on best available information.

Met? Yes

Rationale

The long-term stock rebuilding strategy is implicit in the OMP selection process, where the TAC is set to protect both hake species in South Africa (see section 7.2.1.3 of this report). . This demonstrates the precautionary approach with respect to Principle 1. In Principle 2, SADSTIA dealt with bird mortalities and habitat issues in a precautionary way – ahead of government regulations, and in a response to information from NGOs alerting the industry to adverse impacts. Logbook information, survey data, observer data and VMS data all contributed to the process underlying decision-making. The SG80 is achieved in terms of precautionary approach and use of best available information. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 151 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on the fishery’s request to stakeholders. explanations are provided for performance and Guide any actions or lack of action management actions and associated with findings and describes how the post relevant recommendations management system emerging from research, responded to findings and monitoring, evaluation and relevant recommendations review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

There are several channels through which formal reporting of fisheries performance take place, namely the Scientific Working Group, the Resource Management Working Group, and Industry–Government meetings. Regulations and permit conditions are available on government websites. At previous site visits it has been clear that SADSTIA and other stakeholders, such as WWF, SANBI, SAEON, BLSA, CapFish etc. were all very well informed of what is happening in the fishery, and how management responded to recommendations. Continued good performance in this regard will be evaluated at the site visit for this re-assessment. As noted under SIa above, the DAFF Fishing Rights Allocation Process (FRAP) website provides information on how rights are allocated and the progress of this process. At a less formal level, the SADSTIA website provides up-to-date information on the fishery, including information on stock status, environmental impacts and management regime. The wide and ready availability of information and the formal reporting system summarised above appears to be successful in disseminating information on fishery performance and management action, meeting the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements.

Approach to disputes Although the management The management system or The management system or authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or rapidly Guide challenges, it is not indicating with judicial decisions arising implements judicial decisions e a disrespect or defiance of from any legal challenges. arising from legal challenges. post the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The purpose of this SI is to determine the approach to disputes through the presence or absence of actual legal disputes. It examines whether the management agency is subject to court challenges, and how the agency responds to judgements or decisions made by any higher authority. It also examines whether the fishery itself commits violations of the same law or regulations in a way that compromises the ability of the management system to deliver sustainable fisheries in accordance with the outcomes intended by MSC Principles 1 & 2 (see guidance in FCR v2.01 at GSA4.8). The assessment team has considered both the performance of the management system and the fishery in accordance with this guidance. 1. Management system performance It is important to note that this SI considers the fishery-specific management system (i.e. for inshore and deep-sea hake fisheries). It is noted that there are concerns about the approach of the management system to disputes in

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 152 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

other fisheries, notably the abalone and rock lobster fisheries (Cape Argus 2018a, 2018b), but these are currently understood to be relevant only to those fisheries and therefore are not considered relevant here. The judicial decision on rock lobsters has however clarified that the MLRA requirement In recent years a major dispute arose in connection with the allocation of fishing rights for the inshore trawl fishery in 2016. The allocation of rights to new rights holders and the commensurate adjustment of quota allocations to existing rights holders resulted in one company being granted an interdict on the Government’s decision. This resulted in the suspension of the inshore trawl fishery until July 2017 when the legal dispute was resolved in the Courts. It is noted that SADSTIA are preparing for the upcoming rights allocation in the deep-sea trawl fishery by setting out the industry position proactively (SADSTIA 2018a). 2. Fishery performance DAFF enforcement activity directed at the hake fishery has only detected minor infringements during the period from January-December 2017 (data have not yet been provided for the year ending December 2018). These vessels were fined for the transgressions and the record showed no evidence of repeated offences by the same vessel. 3. Summary & Conclusion There is evidence that the management system has complied with a judicial decision arising from a legal challenge with regard to the rights allocation in the inshore trawl fishery recently, meeting the SG60 and SG80 requirements. SG100 could be met if evidence can be presented to show that the management system acts proactively to avoid such disputes in future. The evidence for the fishery is similar: there is a good track record of compliance with the management system and no evidence of repeated violations of the same law or regulations, meeting the SG60 and SG80 requirements. SG100 may be met if evidence can be presented to show that both SADSTIA and SECIFA both have procedures in place that act proactively to avoid disputes.

References

(MLRA 1998, Field et al. 2013, DAFF 2015a, 2015b, Lallemand et al. 2016, DAFF 2017, Cape Argus 2018a, 2018b, DAFF 2018e, SADSTIA 2018a, DEFF 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, SADSTIA 2019, FiskerForum 2019)

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 153 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 MCS implementation Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented in been implemented in the surveillance system has been a Guide the fishery and there is a fishery and has demonstrated implemented in the fishery reasonable expectation that an ability to enforce relevant and has demonstrated a post they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to enforce strategies and/or rules. relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

This initial appraisal of the monitoring, control and surveillance system for the re-assessment of the fishery is based on the evidence presented prior to the site visit and also that obtained at previous site visits. At these site visits the MSC assessment teams have inspected the DAFF VMS suite, visited the fisheries patrol vessel (FPV) Sarah Baartman, and also examined enforcement records at the DAFF offices. The findings presented below will be verified at the site visit. DAFF has a compliance auditing plan for all sectors of the fishing industry. The hake sector is one of the 4 compliance priorities in South Africa. Annual enforcement inspection targets are set for the deep-sea and inshore trawl fisheries. Annual surveillance audits of the fishery have found that these annual targets have consistently met, and this will be reviewed again at the upcoming site visit. As well as remote surveillance and monitoring at sea, DAFF inspect landings and audit the catch, landings and processing records for the fishery to ensure compliance with effort (TAC) controls. Mobile scanners are used to inspect the contents of frozen containers. During the recent years, DAFF enforcement activity directed at the hake fishery has detected only minor offences (mainly administrative errors). The vessels were fined for these transgressions. DAFF has previously had significant enforcement successes (outside of the hake fishery) including detecting, apprehending and seizure of 10 IUU vessels, and intercepting, seizing and repatriating consignments of illegally shipped fish products (again not hake). DAFF have previously reported that around 70% of cases brought by DAFF are successful; as part of its work, DAFF officials provide training to the judiciary and prosecuting counsel about fisheries legislation and regulation. In summary it has been evident from previous site visits that a monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment, with the ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. The assessment team therefore considers that, providing the performance of this system has been maintained, the SG80 requirements should still be met. The assessment team note that there have been difficulties with compliance monitoring in the past (particularly regarding the enforcement presence at sea). It is noted that there has been a decline in the number of at-sea inspections in recent years (131 were conducted in 2016; 52 in 2017; and 44 in 2018). This trend will be discussed with DAFF officials at the site visit.

Sanctions b Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Guide compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are post some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and applied.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 154 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The DAFF (now DEFF) enforcement reports provided to the assessment team indicate that there are have been very few transgressions in the hake fishery in recent years, and that sanctions are applied whenever these are detected. All of the sanctions detected have been of a relatively minor nature (typically administrative and procedural offences) which do not affect the overall sustainability of the fishery. Serious issues of non-compliance can potentially result in the suspension or loss of fishing rights under Section 28 of the MLRA (an example of a successful Section 28 ruling, followed by the closure and prosecution of a major fishing company, is the case of Hout Bay Fishing in the lobster fishery). The available evidence prior to the site visit is therefore that sanctions exist to deal with non-compliance, that they are consistently applied and provide effective deterrence, which meets the SG60, 80 & 100 requirements. This view will be verified at the site visit by inspection of the most up-to-date enforcement records.

Compliance Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for the with the management system comply with the management c Guide fishery under assessment, under assessment, including, system under assessment, post including, when required, when required, providing including, providing providing information of information of importance to information of importance to importance to the effective the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The movements of the entire hake fishing fleet are under continual observation in the VMS operations room at DAFF (now DEFF), confirming that the trawl footprint is strictly complied with. A high degree of cooperation has been achieved among SADSTIA, DEFF and the scientific community – this is clearly based on a shared desire for a responsibly managed fishery, adhering to MSC Principles. At previous site visits, DAFF have provided verification that the trawl footprint is complied with. Fishers (and the infrastructure set up to manage the fishery; i.e. VMS system) provide information of importance to the effective management of the fishery on a daily or trip-by-trip basis. The observer programme provides data on catch composition, length composition, bycatch quantities and seabird interactions. Discards are sampled to determine their composition and quantities. Vessels provide logbook data of fishing effort and catches after each trip, including the position and depth of trawling. Seabird interactions are reported through both the government and the industry-funded observer programmes. DEFF inspectors monitoring landings at offloading points and factories, to reconcile with logbook estimates of catches and with quota allocations. The evidence provided at previous site visits instils a high degree of confidence that the management system is complied with and that fisheries provide information of importance to the management of the fishery. In the past the fishery has met the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements. This view will be verified at the site visit by inspecting up-to- date records to ensure that standards of monitoring and compliance have been maintained.

Systematic non-compliance d Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non-compliance.

Met? Yes

Rationale

See above. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance and SG80 is therefore met.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 155 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

References

(MLRA 1998, Field et al. 2013, DAFF 2017, 2018d, 2019e, 2019g)

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 156 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.4 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 Evaluation coverage There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in a Guide place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts of place to evaluate all parts of post of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system. management system. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Both internal and external review mechanisms exist, which measure progress of the management system against its objectives. The mechanisms include Resource Management and Scientific Working Group meetings, and auditing of fisheries sectors by the Compliance section. An international stock assessment workshop is held regularly, when experts are invited to review the assessment process, from data requirements, through all steps, up to OMP development and recommendations. The stock assessment and OMP provide the primary mechanism for generating consistent management advice for longer term management of the hake species, and where necessary a stock rebuilding strategy. The OMP is reviewed each 4 years. The evaluation of the management system extends to the effectiveness of monitoring, compliance and surveillance activity (kept under review by the Resource Management Working Group). There are also mechanisms in place to evaluate ecosystem impacts – for instance, the DAFF Bycatch Task Team; through liaison between industry, government and stakeholders to successfully address bird impacts; and through the ongoing evaluation of habitat impacts in the SADSTIA-funded research carried out by SANBI. The review mechanisms are in place to evaluate all parts of the management system, and therefore the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements appear to be met. At the site visit the assessment team will seek evidence that these review processes are fully functional.

Internal and/or external review The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific Guide management system is management system is management system is b subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal post internal review. and occasional external and external review. review. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The procedures in place for internal and external review of the management system are considered in turn below. Internal Review: The management system is subject to regular and frequent internal review. This includes an evaluation of the assessment methodology and the OMP, and also that any recommended changes have been considered and actioned as appropriate. The OMP review process is undertaken in consultation with international expert panels, industry and other stakeholders. A Resource Management Working group structure is in place to allow reviews of performance within sectors, involving participation of relevant stakeholders (Interested and Affected Parties (IAAPs) including NGOs, Industry, consultants etc). Meetings are held as required, but minimally twice per annum. The Scientific Working Group (in the case of hake, the Demersal Working Group) meet several times per year with a varying agenda notably including the stock assessment but also other issues which may arise in the hake fishery. Specific task groups may also be convened.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 157 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

DAFF has a compliance auditing plan for all sectors of the fishing industry. The hake sector is one of the 4 compliance priorities in South Africa. Annual enforcement targets are set for the fishery and progress with the enforcement plan is kept under review. External Review: An international stock assessment workshop of invited experts is held regularly to review fishery specific assessments and management methods. There is evidence of external review of management measures directed at ecosystem (Principle 2) impacts of the fishery, such as the DAFF Bycatch Task Team, the independent work on benthic impacts commissioned by SADSTIA; and the work carried out by BLSA to assess the effectiveness of management measures to address impacts of the fishery on bird species. The fishery-specific management system is therefore subject to regular internal and external review, and the SG60, 80 and 100 requirements appear to be met. Again, the assessment team will seek evidence of the operation of these review processes at the site visit.

References

(Cox et al. 2018, DAFF 2018e, Ross-Gillespie et al. 2018, SADSTIA 2018b)

Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 158 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

8 Appendices 8.1 Assessment information 8.1.1 Previous assessments The South African hake trawl fishery was first certified against the MSC Standard in April 2004. It was re-certified in March 2010, and again in May 2015. At the re-assessment of the fishery in 2015 a total of 5 conditions of certification were raised. The nature and status of these conditions are summarised in Table 19. There are presently 4 conditions of certification that remain open, prior to the site visit for the 4th surveillance audit and re-assessment that is scheduled for May 2014.October 2019. Table 19: Summary of previous assessment conditions

Condition PI(s) Year closed Justification

The 2018 stock assessment indicated 1: Stock rebuilding is required for that the M. paradoxus stock biomass 1.1.1 2018 M. paradoxus. was at a level above its target reference point. 2: Information should be gathered on the interactions between the Progress was considered to be on target 2.3.3 Still open. inshore trawl fleet and ETP bird at last surveillance audit. species. 3: Options for protecting benthic Progress was considered to be on target habitats from trawl fishery 2.4.2 Still open. at last surveillance audit. impacts should be investigated. 4: Information should be gathered on the interactions between the Progress was considered to be on target 2.3.3 Still open. inshore trawl fleet and ETP bird at last surveillance audit. species. 5: Options for protecting benthic Progress was considered to be on target habitats from trawl fishery 2.4.2 Still open. at last surveillance audit. impacts should be investigated. 8.1.2 Small-scale fisheries Catches of hake To help identify small-scale fisheries in the MSC program, the CAB should complete the table below for each Unit of Assessment (UoA). For situations where it is difficult to determine exact percentages, the CAB may use approximations e.g. to the nearest 10%.

Table 20: Small scale fisheries

Percentage of vessels with Percentage of fishing activity completed Unit of Assessment (UoA) length <15m within 12 nautical miles of shore

UoA 1

UoA 2

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 159 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques This section of the report will be completed in the Client Peer Review Draft Report following the site visit. 8.2.1 Site visits A site visit will take place in Cape Town, South Africa in the week commencing 28th October 2019. The assessment team will prepare an audit itinerary prior to the site visit. 8.2.2 Stakeholder participation Stakeholder participation shall be encouraged prior to the site visit and throughout the assessment process. All written submissions and a summary of verbal submissions and interviews shall be appended to the reports produced following the site visit. 8.2.3 Evaluation techniques 8.2.3.1 Methodology for information gathering The information used for this assessment was gathered before, during and after the site visit. Published sources of information will be used, as well as unpublished reports and interviews with stakeholders. 8.2.3.2 The scoring process Scoring will be discussed by the team during the site visit and formally completed afterwards when information requested during the site visit had been made available by the clients and other stakeholders. The scoring methodology is set out in the MSC FCRv2.1 at section 7.17. In summary, the MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements of a certified fishery. The certification methodology adopted by the MSC involves the interpretation of these Principles and Criteria into specific Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts against which the performance of Fishery can be measured. In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, these identify the level of performance necessary to achieve 100, 80 (a pass score), and 60 scores for each Indicator. For each Performance Indicator, the performance of the fishery is assessed as a ‘score’. For the fishery to achieve certification, an overall score of 80 is considered necessary for each of the three Principles, 100 represent ideal best practice and 60 a measurable shortfall. A fishery cannot be certified if a score below 60 is recorded for any PI. As it is not considered possible to allocate precise scores, a scoring interval of five is therefore used in evaluations. A procedure for determining scores was agreed before scoring took place. In all cases, the team would aim to agree a score (a consensus approach). In situations where team members are not able to agree on the score that should be awarded for a PI, the lowest score proposed will be used, as a precautionary measure. 8.2.4 Modified assessment tree The default assessment tree has been used in this assessment.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 160 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

8.3 Peer Review reports This section of the report has been intentionally left blank. It will be completed as the assessment process progresses in accordance with the following directions from the Marine Stewardship Council: - • To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 161 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

8.4 Stakeholder input This section of the report has been intentionally left blank. It will be completed as the assessment process progresses in accordance with the following directions from the Marine Stewardship Council: - • To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report • To be completed at Public Certification Report

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 162 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

8.5 Conditions – delete if not applicable This section of the report has been intentionally left blank. It will be completed as the assessment process progresses in accordance with the following directions from the Marine Stewardship Council: - • To be drafted from Client and Peer Review Draft Report 8.6 Client Action Plan This section of the report has been intentionally left blank. It will be completed as the assessment process progresses in accordance with the following directions from the Marine Stewardship Council: - • To be added from Public Comment Draft Report

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 163 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

8.7 Surveillance This section of the report has been intentionally left blank. It will be completed as the assessment process progresses in accordance with the following directions from the Marine Stewardship Council: - • To be drafted from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 164 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

8.8 Risk-Based Framework 8.8.1 Plan for RBF Activities at the site visit It is anticipated that the MSC Risk Based Framework will be used during this assessment. The purpose of this section is to plan the RBF activities that the team will undertake at the site visit, in accordance with MSC FCR v2.1 at §7.10.2m. The RBF procedures that need to be used to assess these Performance Indicators are set out in MSC FCR v2.1 at Annex PF. Before the site visit stakeholders shall be informed about the use of the RBF in this assessment (as directed in FCR v2.1 at PF2.3.2). The site visit shall be organised to encourage the engagement of stakeholders with the assessment team and discussions between stakeholders. The opportunities that will be provided for stakeholder input to the RBF at the site visit will include the interviews that the assessment team conduct with individual stakeholders and may also include an RBF workshop that all stakeholders will be invited to attend. Table 21: Summary of the RBF activities that will be required at the site visit. Performance RBF Process Activities required at site Options for stakeholder Indicator visit participation PI2.2.1 – Secondary Stakeholder input will be species outcome used to: - a) Assist in the identification of PI2.3.1 – Endangered, Productivity- species that are Threatened & Susceptibility affected by the Protected species Analysis (PSA) UoAs. outcome b) Assist in the scoring of the susceptibility attributes within the Stakeholder interviews. PSA. PI2.4.1 – Habitats Stakeholder input will be RBF workshop for all outcome used to: - stakeholders a) Assist in the identification of habitats that are Consequence Spatial affected by the Analysis UoAs. b) Assist in the scoring of the consequence and spatial attributes within the CSA. Prior to the site visit the team shall gather the information needed for scoring these PIs as required by Annex PF. This information will be used to inform the RBF stakeholder meetings and will be made available to attendees; in addition to this the team will collect information to inform the use of the RBF both during and after the site visit. The team shall use all of the data available as part of the assessment and reflect the analysis of this information when scoring the fishery. In the use of both the PSA and CSA, the scores awarded for each PI shall be determined by the team. 8.8.2 RBF outputs To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 165 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

8.9 Harmonised fishery assessments This section of the assessment report provides a summary of the activities that have been conducted to harmonise this fishery assessment with any overlapping MSC fishery assessments. The activities that the assessment team has conducted prior to the site visit (at the Announcement Comment Draft Report stage) are presented below. 8.9.1 At Announcement Comment Draft Report Stage Table 22: Overlapping fisheries

Performance Indicators to Fishery name Certification status and date harmonise

To be confirmed following site visit: it is anticipated that harmonisation will be required for Principle 1 and for the management & governance Principle 3 PIs (3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3) for M. Namibia hake trawl and longline In assessment paradoxus. fishery It appears unlikely that harmonisation will be required for M. capensis or for the Principle 2 components in either UoA, but this will be kept under review.

Table 23: Overlapping fisheries information

Supporting information

Prior to the site visit the assessment team identified that the target stocks for the South African hake trawl fishery and the adjacent Namibian hake trawl and longline fishery may be shared. The extent to which the stocks are shared is still under investigation by South African and Namibian scientists and fishery managers.

Was either FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.3.4 or PB1.3.4.5 applied when harmonising? Yes

03/04/19 19/06/19 Date of harmonisation meeting 19/07/19 30/08/19

If applicable, describe the meeting outcome

Several harmonisation discussions have been held with the Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) for the Namibian fishery (CU-Pesca). These took place on the 3rd April, 19th June, 19th July and 30th August 2019. The key conclusions of these discussions were: - a) The available evidence is that the Merluccius capensis stocks in South Africa and Namibia are separate. The scoring for Principle 1 & 3 does not therefore need to be harmonised for this UoA. b) The South African and Namibian M. paradoxus stocks appear to be shared, but the extent of sharing is not fully understood. In particular it is not currently possible to determine how these stocks should be classified with respect to MSC FCR v2.1 Table G2, which indicates the approach that should be adopted for stocks with different levels of linkage. It has been agreed that on the basis of the information available at present it would be appropriate to harmonise scoring for this UoA as follows: - a. Scoring of all Principle 1 PIs for M. paradoxus; b. Scoring of Principle 3 PIs that relate to the whole stock (3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3). c) There do not appear to be any requirements to harmonise scoring for any Principle 2, since there is currently no indication of the need to assess cumulative impacts on any P2 components.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 166 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

It was noted during the discussion that the existing South African hake fishery MSC certificate considers the two hake species (Merluccius capensis and M. paradoxus) as separate UoAs, while the Namibian assessment considers these two species as a single entity the UoA for each métier. Both Conformity Assessment Bodies have agreed that it will be necessary to conduct further harmonisation discussions after the site visit, by which time the assessment team will have obtained the most up-to-date information available on the South African perception of hake stock structure in the Benguela ecosystem. When these harmonisation discussions have been completed the sections of the report below will be completed.

The following tables will be completed at the Client Peer Review Draft Report stage when full scores for both fisheries are available. Table 24: Scoring differences between overlapping fisheries.

Performance Fishery name Fishery name Fishery name Fishery name Indicators (PIs)

PI Score Score Score Score

PI Score Score Score Score

PI Score Score Score Score

Table 25: Rationale for scoring differences between overlapping fisheries.

If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators (FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.6)

If exceptional circumstances apply, outline the situation and whether there is agreement between or among teams on this determination

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 167 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

8.9.2 Following site visit This section of the report has been intentionally left blank. It will be completed as the assessment process progresses in accordance with the following directions from the Marine Stewardship Council: - • To be completed at Public Certification Report stage

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 168 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

8.10 Objection Procedure – delete if not applicable This section of the report has been intentionally left blank. It will be completed as the assessment process progresses in accordance with the following directions from the Marine Stewardship Council: - • To be added at Public Certification Report stage

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 169 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

9 References 9.1 Principle 1 Attwood, C., Petersen, S., and Kerwath, S. 2011. Bycatch in South Africa’s inshore trawl fishery as determined from observer records. ICES Journal of Marine Science (2011), 68(10), 2163–2174.Rademeyer, 2012 split – capensis v paradoxus Rademeyer, R.A., Butterworth, D.S. & Ross-Gillespie A.R., 2018. Specification of the South African Hake 2018 Reference Case Assessment. MARAM/IWS/2018/Hake/P1rev. 44pp. Ross-Gillespie and D. S Butterworth, 2019. Updated specifications, conditioning results and projections for the Hake OMP2018 Reference Set models. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG-DEM/03. 49pp. Rademeyer A. and Butterworth D., 2017. A spatially structured stock assessment for the South African hake resource with movement based on a gravity model, and including fitting to outputs from the GeoPop Model. SoV 2 MARAM SWG- DEM 2017. Wilhelm, M.R., Kirchner, C.H., Roux, J.-P., Jarre, A., Iitembu, J.A., Kathena, J.N. and Kainge, P. 2015. Biology and fisheries of the shallow-water hake (Merluccius capensis) and the deep-water hake (M. paradoxus) in Namibia. Chapter 3 In: Hakes: biology and exploitation, pp 70-100. Ed. by H. Arancibia. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester, UK. DOI: 10.1002/9781118568262.ch3 9.2 Principle 2 ACAP, 2012a. Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross. ACAP, 12pp. Available at: https://acap.aq/en/acap-species/290- atlantic-yellow-nosed-albatross/file [Accessed: 1 April 2019]

ACAP, 2012b. Black-browed Albatross. ACAP, 22pp. Available at: https://acap.aq/en/acap-species/238-black-browed- albatross/file [Accessed: 1 April 2019]

ACAP, 2012c. Indian Yellow-nosed Albatross. ACAP, 13pp. Available at: https://acap.aq/en/acap-species/295-indian- yellow-nosed-albatross/file [Accessed: 1 April 2019]

ACAP, 2012d. Northern Giant Petrel. ACAP, 17pp. Available at: https://acap.aq/en/acap-species/288-southern-giant- petrel/file [Accessed: 1 April 2019]

ACAP, 2012e. Northern Royal Albatross. ACAP, 13pp. Available at: https://acap.aq/en/acap-species/296-northern- royal-albatross/file [Accessed: 1 April 2019]

ACAP, 2012f. Shy Albatross. ACAP, 11pp. Available at: https://acap.aq/en/acap-species/299-shy-albatross/file [Accessed: 1 April 2019]

ACAP, 2012g. Southern Giant Petrel. ACAP, 24pp. Available at: https://acap.aq/en/acap-species/288-southern-giant- petrel/file [Accessed: 1 April 2019]

ACAP, 2012h. White-capped Albatross. ACAP, 12pp. Available at: https://acap.aq/en/acap-species/317-white-capped- albatross/file [Accessed: 1 April 2019]

ACAP, 2012i. White-chinned petrel. ACAP, 15pp. Available at: https://acap.aq/en/acap-species/306-white-chinned- petrel/file [Accessed: 1 April 2019]

Andrews, J., Groeneveld, J., & Pawson, M., 2015. South African Hake Trawl Fishery Final Report. Ref: 82007. Intertek Fisheries Certification.

Anonymous. 2018. The South African Offshore Trawl Bycatch Fishery Conservation Project (FCP). Progress report for period: 20 June 2018 – 18 September 2018. 12 pp.

Anonymous. 2019a. DAFF Demersal research 2019. March 2019. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG-DEM/05. 36 pp.

Atkinson, L.J., & Sink, K..J., (eds) 2018. Field Guide to the Offshore Marine Invertebrates of South Africa, Malachite Marketing and Media. pp. 498 pp.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 170 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Atkinson, L.J., 2009. Effects of demersal trawling on marine infaunal, epifaunal and fish assemblages: studies in the southern Benguela and Oslofjord. PhD Thesis, University of Cape Town. 141pp.

Atkinson, L.J., Field, J.G., and Hutchings, L., 2011. Effects of demersal trawling along the west coast of southern Africa: multivariate analysis of benthic assemblages. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 430, 241-255.

Attwood, C. 2019. Report on the status of the experimental threshold project – bycatch management – of the inshore trawl fishery. 5 pp.

Attwood, C., Petersen, S., and Kerwath, S., 2011. Bycatch in South Africa’s inshore trawl fishery as determined from observer records. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 68, 2163–2174.

Attwood, C.G. & Sink, K., 2017. Voyage 166 of the Ellen Khuzwayo. Fourth Survey of the Benthic

Attwood, C.G., Næsje, T.F., Fairhurst, L., and Kerwath, S.E., 2010. Life-history parameters of white stumpnose Rhabdosargus globiceps (Pisces: Sparidae) in Saldanha Bay, South Africa, with evidence of stock separation. African J. Mar. Sci. 32, 23–35.

Bergh, M., & Leach, K., 2019. Analysis of inshore trawling bird observation data with a view to estimating the scale of the TORI line effect, and the role of other variables. OLSPS Marine. 7pp.

Best, P.B., 2007. Whales and Dolphins of the Southern African Subregion. Cambridge University Press, 338 pp.

Blamey, L.K., Shannon, L.J., Bolton, J.J., Crawford, R.J.M., Dufois, F., Evers-King, H., Griffiths, C.L., Hutchings, L., Jarre, A., Roualt, M., Watermeyer, K. & Winker, H. 2014. Ecosystem changes in the southern Benguela and the underlying processes.

Brandão, A. 2017. Updated assessment of the South African kingklip resource that includes catch-at-length data for the one-stock and two-stock hypotheses. FISHERIES/2017/JUL/SWG-DEM/20. 29 pp.

Brandão, A., & Butterworth, D.S., 2008. Updated assessment of the South African Kingklip resource including an initial attempt at including catch at length data. MCM/2008/NOV/SWG-DEM: 75. 30pp.

Brandão, A., & Butterworth, D.S., 2013. A “Replacement Yield” Model Fit to Catch and Survey Data for the South and West Coasts Kingklip Resource of South Africa. FISHERIES/2013/SEP/SWG-DEM/51(rev). 12pp.

Bull, L.S., 2007. Reducing seabird bycatch in longline, trawl and gillnet fisheries. Fish Fish. 8, 31–56.

Currie, J.C., 2017. Historical baselines and a century of change in the demersal fish assemblages on South Africa’s Agulhas Bank. PhD thesis, University of Cape Town.

Currie, J.C., Sink, K., Atkinson, L., Winker, H., Durholtz, D., Leslie, R. & Attwood, C. 2018. Comparison of demersal fish assemblages on the inshore Angulhas Bank between 1903/1904 and 2015. FISHERIES/2018/MAY/SWG- DEM/23a. 39 pp.

Currie, J.C., Thorson, J.T., Sink, K., Atkinson, L., Fairweather, T.P. & Winker, H. 2019. A novel approach to assess distribution trends from fisheries survey data. Fish Res 21, 98-109.

DAFF, 2016. Status of the South African Marine Fishery Resources 2016. 112pp.

DAFF, 2019a. Section C. Sector Specific Permit Conditions: Hake Deep-Sea Trawl. Fishing Season: 2019. 13pp.

DAFF, 2019b. Section C. Sector Specific Permit Conditions: Hake & Sole Inshore Trawl. Fishing

Daneel, C., & Attwood, C., 2013. Bycatch in South Africa’s Offshore Trawl Fishery as Determined from Observer Records. Draft DEG report, January 2013. 45pp.

Davies, S., Hjort, A., Boyer, D. & Boyer, H., 2015. Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem: State of the Marine Environment, 2014. 1st Edition. Benguela Current Commission, Swakopmund, Namibia.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 171 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Da Silva, C., Booth, A.J., Dudley, S.F.J., Kerwarth, S.E., Lamberth, S.J., Leslie, R.W., McCord, M.E., Sauer, W.H.H. & Zweig, W. 2015. The current staus and management of South Africa’s chondrichthyan fisheries. African Journal of Marine Science, 37, 233-248.

Da Silva, C., Winker, H., Parker, D., Wilke, C.G., Lamberth, S.J. & Kerwarth, S.E. undated. Update and review of the NPOA for sharks South Africa. 21 pp.

Demersal Scientific Working Group. 2018. Recommendations of the Demersal Scientific Working Group for the sustainable management of Agulhas sole for the 2019 season. October 2018. 12 pp.

Fairweather, T.P., & Durholtz, D., 2017. Data for simple assessments of key hake trawl by-catch species – part II. FISHERIES/2017/OCT/SWG-DEM/46. 16pp.

Fairweather, T.P & Glazer, J.P. 2018. Agulhas sole 2018 update of input data: catch & CPUE. FISHERIES/2018/OCT/SWG-DEM/56. 3pp.

FAO. 2009. International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. FAO. 73p.

Fertl, D., & Leatherwood, S. 1997. Cetacean interactions with trawls: a preliminary review. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 22, 219-248.

Franken, M.-L. 2019. Review of current practices for Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem encounters. University of Cape Town, South African National Biodiversity Institution. 9 pp.

Gasche, L., Gascuel, D., Shannon, L., & Shin Y.-J., 2012. Global assessment of the fishing impacts on the Southern Benguela ecosystem using an EcoTroph modelling approach. J. Mar. Sci. 90, 1-12.

Glazer, J.P., 2013. An updated assessment of the South African Monkfish resource, Lophius vomerinus. FISHERIES/2013/SEPT/SWG-DEM/42.

Glazer, J.P. & Butterworth, D.S. 2018. Exploratory analyses of the Agulhas sole assessment. FISHERIES/2018/MAR/SWG-DEM/13. 10 pp.

Glazer, J.P., Durholtz, D. & Fairweather, T.P. 2017a. As assessment of the South African Monkfish resource, Lophius vomerinus. FISHERIES/2017/SEP/SWG-DEM/36. 13 pp.

Glazer, J.P., Leslie, R.W. & Durholtz, M.D. 2017b. Further replacement yield calculations applied to bycatch species in the demersal and line fisheries. FISHERIES/2017/OCT/SWG-DEM/45. 6 pp.

Glazer, J.P., Fairweather, T.P. & Durholtz, M.D. 2017c. Preliminary results from the application of replacement yield models to coast-specific indices of abundance for various demersal by-catch species. Draft. FISHERIES/2017/FEB/SWG-DEM/05. 18 pp.

Greenstone, J.D., 2013. Assessing the suitability of an Individual Transferable Quota System to address unregulated by-catch in South Africa’s inshore trawl fishery. M. Phil. Thesis, University of Cape Town. 69pp.

Heymans, J.J. & Tomczak, M.T., 2016. Regime shifts in the Northern Benguela ecosystem: Challenges for management. Ecol. Mod. 331, 151-159.

IUCN, 2019. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-1. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 1 April 2019.

Johnston, S.J. & Butterworth, D.S. 2018. 2018 Updated horse mackerel assessments. FISHERIES/2018/OCT/SWG- DEM/54rev. 18pp.

Kerwath, S., Parker, D., Attwood, C., da Silva, C., Maggs, J. & Winker, H. 2017. The 2017 assessment of snoek (Thyrsites atun) for the South African linefishery. FISHERIES/LSWG/2017/06. 27pp.

Lee, M. & Atwood, C. undated. Electronic monitoring of the South African demersal trawl fishery.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 172 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Lee, M. 2017. Stock assessment of the South African Panga (Pterogymnus laniarius) using trip-level fisheries- dependent data standardised to the level of the drag. Unpubl. Report, University of Cape Town.

Leslie, R., & Glazer, J., 2013. Trends in abundance indices from West and South Coast trawl surveys. FISHERIES/2013/FEB/SWG-DEM/72. 12pp.

Lewison, R., Wallace, B., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Mangle, J.C., Maxwell, S.M. & Hazen, E.L. 2013. Fisheries Bycatch of Marine Turtles: Lessons learned from decades of research and conservation. In: Wyneken, J., Lohmann, K.J., Musick, J.A., Wallace, B.P., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., Mangel, J.C., Maxwell, S.M. & Hazen, Elliott, L. (eds): The Biology of Sea Turtles Volume III. CRC Press. 475 pp.

Linefish Assessment Task Team. 2019. PUCL and move-on rules for bycatch in Desert Diamond midwater trawl fishery. FISHERIES/2019/MAR/SWG-DEM/HMTT/02. 3pp.

Mann, B.Q., 2013. Southern African Marine Linefish Species Profiles. Oceanographic Research Institute, Durban. Special Publication No. 9, September 2013. 357pp.

Maree, B. A., Wanless, R. M., Fairweather, T. P., Sullivan, B. J., & Yates, O., 2014. Significant reductions in mortality of threatened seabirds in a South African trawl fishery. Animal Conservation. doi: 10.1111/acv.12126.

Maree, B.A., & Wanless, R.M., 2011a. Seabird bycatch rates and an extrapolated estimate of the total annual mortality of albatrosses and other seabirds in the South African deep-water hake trawl fishery. FISHERIES/2011/MAY/SWG- DEM/19. 13pp.

Mashao, M., Maree, B. & Wanless, R. 2016. Seabird mortality risks in the South African Inshore Trawl Fishery. Literature review and recommendations. BirdLife South Africa. 12pp.

Pierre, J.P., Richard, Y & Abraham, E.R., 2015. Assessment of cryptic seabird mortality due to trawl warps and longlines. Final Report prepared for the Department of Conservation: Conservation Services Programme project INT2013-05. 51 pp.

Powers, J., Tingley, G., Japp, D., Combes, J. & Hough, A. 2010. MSC Reassessment Report for South African Hake Trawl Fishery. Certificate No.: MML-F-005. Moody Marine Ltd.

SADSTIA, 2018. Letter to Deputy Director-General, Department of Environmental Affairs. SADSTIA Comments on Intention to Observe the Proposed Offshore Marine Protected Area Network. 2p.

SADSTIA, 2019. Bottom trawling move-on rules applicable to the South African hake inshore trawl and hake deep-sea trawl fisheries. 6 pp.

Shannon, L.J., Curry, P.M. & Jarre, A., 2000. Modelling effects of fishing in the Southern Benguela ecosystem. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 720-722.

Sink K.J., Wilkinson S., Atkinson L.J, Sims P.F, Leslie R.W. & Attwood C.G. 2012. The potential impacts of South Africa’s demersal hake trawl fishery on benthic habitats: historical perspectives, spatial analyses, current review and potential management actions. Unpublished report, South African National Biodiversity Institute, 84pp.

Smith, M., 2013. Progress report of the SADSTIA observer seabird data. Capfish, July 2013. 5pp.

Smith, M., 2016a. SADSTIA Observer Programme Annual Report. Capricorn Marine Environmental.

Smith, M., 2016b. SECIFA Scientific Observer Programme. Capricorn Marine Environmental. 9pp.

Smith, M., Cochrane, K., & Japp, D, 2013. Review of significant bycatch and “joint product” species in the South African Hake-Directed trawl fishery. Prepared for the South African Deep Sea Trawling Industry Association by Capricorn Fisheries Monitoring. 69pp.

South Africa’s Agulhas Bank. PhD Thesis. University of Cape Town. 197pp.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 173 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Travers-Trolet, M., Shin Y.-J., Shannon, L.J., Moloney, C.L., & Field, J.G., 2014. Combined fishing and climate forcing in the Southern Benguela upwelling ecosystem: an end-to-end modelling approach reveals dampened effects. PLOS One 9, 1-9.

Trawl Experiment and Benthic Survey of Child’s Bank. 19 January to 26 January 2017. 10pp.

Uhlmann, S., 2003. Fisheries bycatch mortalities of sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus) and short-tailed shearwaters (P. tenuirostris). DOC Science Internal Series No. 92. Department of Conservation. 52 pp.

Wallace, B.P., Kot, C.Y., DiMatteo, A.D., Lee, T., Crowder, L.B., & Lewison, R.L. 2013. Impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine turtle populations worldwide: toward conservation and research priorities. Ecosphere 4(3), 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00388.1

Watkins, B.P, Petersen, S.L., & Ryan, P.G., 2008. Interactions between seabirds and deep water hake trawl gear: an assessment of impacts in South African waters. Anim. Conserv. 11, 247-254.

Weston, L. & Attwood, C., 2017. Monitoring of Endangered, Threatened & Protected (ETP) species caught as bycatch in five major South African fisheries. Responsible Fisheries Alliance, Cape Town. 65pp.

Williamson, M., 2017. SADSTIA Observer Programme Annual Report. Capricorn Marine Environmental. 13pp.

Williamson, M., 2018a. SADSTIA Observer Programme. Capricorn Marine Environmental. 12pp.

Williamson, M., 2018b. SECIFA Scientific Observer Programme. December 2018. Capricorn Marine Environmental. 9pp.

Winker, H. 2017. Preliminary assessment update for panga (Pterogymnus laniarius) . Unpubl. report.

Winkler, H., Kerwath, S.E. & Attwood, C.G., 2012. Report on stock assessments of important South African linefish resources. LSWG – February 2012 #3. Unpubl. report. 65pp.

Winker, H., Kerwath, S., Attwood, C., da Silva, C., Maggs, J. & Parker, D. 2017a. The 2017 assessment of carpenter (Argyrozona argyrozona) for the South African linefishery. FISHERIES/LSWG/2017/05. 27pp.

Winker, H., Kerwath, S., Attwood, C., da Silva, C., Maggs, J. & Parker, D. 2017b. The 2017 assessment of silver kob (Argyrosomus indorus) for the South African linefishery. FISHERIES/LSWG/2017/04. 27pp.

Winker, H. 2019. JARA results for African subequatorial chondrichthyans with revised generation length estimates. Supplement S2. Trend analysis and spatial distributions of chondrichthyans based on demersal trawl surveys data from the south and west cosat of South Africa. 51 pp.

9.3 Principle 3 Benguela Current Commission. 2013. The Benguela Current Convention. Page 8. http://www.benguelacc.org/index.php/en/component/docman/doc_download/695-signed-benguela-current- convention-english.

Benguela Current Commission. 2014. The Benguela Current Commission Strategic Action Programme 2015-2019. Page 36. Benguela Current Commission. http://www.benguelacc.org/index.php/en/component/docman/doc_download/684-bcc-strategic-action- programme-2015-2019-eng.

Benguela Current Commission. 2017a. Development of ecological sustainable fisheries practices in the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (ECOFISH). Final Narrative Report. Page 77. Benguela Current Commission. http://www.benguelacc.org/index.php/en/component/docman/doc_download/877-ecofish-final- narative-report.

Benguela Current Commission. 2017b. Development of Ecological Sustainable Fisheries Practices in the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (ECOFISH). Synthesis Workshop Report May 2017. Overall objectice SoV 0.3. Page 23. Benguela Current Commission.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 174 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

http://www.benguelacc.org/index.php/en/component/docman/doc_download/879-overall-objectice-sov-0-3- synthesis-workshop-report-may-2017.

Benguela Current Commission. 2018. Improving Ocean Governance in the Benguela Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME III Project). https://www.benguelacc.org/index.php/en/activities/bclme-iii-project.

Benguela Current Commission. 2019a. ECOFISH. http://www.benguelacc.org/index.php/en/activities/ecofish.

Benguela Current Commission. 2019b. The Benguela Current Convention. http://www.benguelacc.org/index.php/en/about/the-benguela-current-convention.

Cape Argus. 2018a. Fishing rights group welcome court ruling on Cape rock lobster quotas. 28th September 2018. https://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/news/fishing-rights-group-welcome-court-ruling-on-cape-rock-lobster-quotas- 17258118.

Cape Argus. 2018b. Senior fisheries official in abalone theft saga worth R20m. 13th September 2018.:1. https://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/news/senior-fisheries-official-in-abalone-theft-saga-worth-r20m-17053088.

Cox, S., S. Gaichas, M. Haddon, and A. Punt. 2018. International review panel report for the 2018 International Fisheries Stock Assessment Workshop. 26-30 November 2018. Page 20. MARAM, Cape Town. http://www.sadstia.co.za/assets/uploads/MARAM_IWS_2018_Panel_Report.pdf.

DAFF. 2015a. Policy on the Allocation and Management of Commercial Fishing Rights in the Hake Inshore Trawl Fishery: 2015 (No. 1129 of 2015). Page 17. http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC150536.

DAFF. 2015b. Publication of Sector Specific Policies for the allocation of Fishing Rights (No. 1127 of 2015). Page 17. http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC150704.

DAFF. 2017. Hake Transgressions 2017. Page 1.

DAFF. 2018a. Commencement of 2020 Fishing Rights Allocation Process (“FRAP 2020”) for granting commercial fishing rights in terms of section 18 o fthe Marine Living Resource Act, 1998 (Act No. 18 of 1998) as amended (“The Act”). Gazette Notice No. 41781 dated 20 July 2018.pdf. Pages 17–18. Government Gazette, Republic of South Africa. https://www.nda.agric.za/docs/media/Commencement%20of%20FRAP2020%20Gazette%20Notice%20No.% 2041781%20dated%2020%20July%202018.pdf.

DAFF. 2018b. VMS Plot for the Hake Deep-Sea Trawl Fleet, 1st-13th January 2018. DAFF, Cape Town.

DAFF. 2018c. VMS Plot for the Hake Inshore Trawl Fleet, 1st-31st January 2018. DAFF, Cape Town.

DAFF. 2018d. Hake trawl fleet at sea inspections: Monthly summary, January to December 2017. Page 3.

DAFF. 2018e. Recommendations of the Demersal Scientific Working Group for the sustainable management of hake resources for 2019. Page 9. Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries (Cape Town, South Africa).

DAFF. 2019a. Fishing Rights Allocation Process (FRAP). https://www.daff.gov.za/daffweb3/Branches/Fisheries- Management/-Fishing-Rights-Allocation-Process-FRAP-.

DAFF. 2019b. Fishing Permit Conditions for Hake, Sole, Horse Mackerel and Demersal Shark, Section B. Fishing Season: 2019. Page 18.

DAFF. 2019c. Hake Deep-Sea Trawl. Sector Specific Permit Conditions, Section C. Fishing season: 2019. Page 13.

DAFF. 2019d. Hake & Sole Inshore Trawl. Sector Specific Permit Conditions, Section C. Fishing season: 2019. Page 14.

DAFF. 2019e. Hake trawl fleet at sea inspections: Monthly summary, January to December 2018. Page 3.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 175 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

DAFF. 2019f. South African government signs MoU with Namibia on Fisheries. Media Release, 24th January 2019. https://www.daff.gov.za/docs/media/South%20African%20government%20signs%20MoU%20with%20Namibi a%20on%20Fisheries.pdf.

DAFF. 2019g, February 21. Ring-fencing the South African Trawl Grounds - Confirmation of Compliance by Trawlers. Letter from Mr T. Vico (Director, Fisheries Protection Vessels) to Dr J. Augustyn (Secretary, SADSTIA).

DEA. 2018. Cabinet approves a representative network of Marine Protected Areas in the South African exclusive zone | Department of Environmental Affairs, 25th October 2018. https://www.environment.gov.za/mediarelease/cabinetapproves_representativenetworkofMPAs.

DEFF. 2019a. Withdrawal of the notice containing information about the date of the Fishing Rights Allocation Process, the proposed review of the application forms for the allocation of fishing rights and the proposed review of several departmental policies. Government Notice No. 1019 dated 02 August 2019. Page 22. 42608th edition. Government Gazette, Republic of South Africa. http://gpwonline.co.za/Gazettes/Gazettes/42608_2- 8_NationalGovernment.pdf.

DEFF. 2019b. Withdrawal of prior notice and call for nominations for appointment on the Consultative Advisory Forum. Government Notice No. 1018 dated 02 August 2019. Pages 20–21. 42608th edition. Government Gazette, Republic of South Africa. http://gpwonline.co.za/Gazettes/Gazettes/42608_2-8_NationalGovernment.pdf.

DEFF. 2019c. Abolishment of the Fisheries Transformation Council. Government Notice No. 1021 dated 02 August 2019. Page 24. 42608th edition. Government Gazette, Republic of South Africa. http://gpwonline.co.za/Gazettes/Gazettes/42608_2-8_NationalGovernment.pdf.

Field, J. G., C. G. Attwood, A. Jarre, K. Sink, L. J. Atkinson, and S. Petersen. 2013. Cooperation between scientists, NGOs and industry in support of sustainable fisheries: the South African hake Merluccius spp. trawl fishery experiencea. Journal of Fish Biology 83:1019–1034. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jfb.12118.

FiskerForum. 2019, August 22. South Africa’s trawl sector welcomes postponement of long-term rights allocation. https://fiskerforum.com/south-africas-trawl-sector-welcomes-postponement-long-term-rights-allocation/.

Government of Namibia. 2000. Marine Resources Act. Page 40. http://www.mfmr.gov.na/documents/120354/165201/Marine+Reources+Act+2000+- +Act+27+of+2000.pdf/60ffb4c1-ff8a-44ff-8f7e-9e7bbfd4dcbb.

Government of Namibia. 2001. Regulations Relating to the Exploitation of Marine Resources. Page 50. http://www.mfmr.gov.na/documents/120354/165201/Marine+Regulations+Relating+to+the+Exploitation+of+M arine+Resources.pdf/74dca521-f135-4959-878c-edeb6f0b3811.

Henriques, R., S. von der Heyden, M. R. Lipinski, N. du Toit, P. Kainge, P. Bloomer, and C. A. Matthee. 2016. Spatio- temporal genetic structure and the effects of long-term fishing in two partially sympatric offshore demersal fishes. Molecular Ecology 25:5843–5861. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/mec.13890.

Lallemand, P., M. Bergh, M. Hansen, and M. Purves. 2016. Estimating the economic benefits of MSC certification for the South African hake trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 182:98–115. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016578361630025X.

MFMR. 2004. Namibia’s Marine Resources Policy. Page 27. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Windhoek, Namibia. http://www.mfmr.gov.na/documents/120354/165201/Marine+Resources+Policy+2004.pdf/4862b255- 17c1-4d86-97fc-5dc339e21ac3.

MFMR. 2013. Policy Statement (Guidelines) For the Granting of Rights to Harvest Marine Resources and The Allocation of Fishing Quotas. Page 10. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Windhoek, Namibia. http://www.mfmr.gov.na/documents/120354/165201/Policy+statement+%28guidelines%29+for+the+granting+ of+rights+to+harvest+marine+resources+and+allocation+of+Quota+Revised/d5faa27b-fd85-4d3d-a436- d99426688c42.

MFMR. 2014. Namibian management plan for the hake fishery, May 2014 to April 2018. https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/11542510.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 176 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

MFMR. 2017. Strategic Plan: 2017/18-2021/22. Page 32. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Windhoek, Namibia. http://www.mfmr.gov.na/documents/120354/165181/Ministry+of+Fisheries+and+Marine+Resources+Strategic +Plan/02f92de1-1e23-4d9c-839a-d2a433b91abf.

MLRA. 1998. Marine Living Resources Act (No. 18 of 1998). Page 41. http://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC015984.

NEMA. 2004. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act. Page 43. https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nema_amendment_act10.pdf.

Rademeyer, R. A., and D. S. Butterworth. 2017. A spatially structured stock assessment for the South African hake resource with movement based on a gravity model, and including fitting to outputs from the GeoPop Model. Page 56. http://www.benguelacc.org/index.php/en/component/docman/doc_download/883-specific-objective- 1-sov-2-maram-swg-dem-2017.

Ross-Gillespie, A., D. S. Butterworth, J. P. Glazer, and T. P. Fairweather. 2018. The 2018 Operational Management Procedure for the South African Merluccius paradoxus and M. capensis Resources. Page 30. MARAM, Cape Town.

SADSTIA. 2018a. Economic Study of the Hake Deep-Sea Trawl Fishery and the Implications for FRAP. Page 12. SADSTIA, Cape Town. http://www.sadstia.co.za/publication/economic-study-of-the-hake-deep-sea-trawl- fishery-and-the-implications-for-frap/.

SADSTIA. 2018b, December 6. International workshop reviews the operational management procedure for hake. http://www.sadstia.co.za/newsletters/international-workshop-reviews-the-operational-management-procedure- for-hake/.

SADSTIA. 2019. SADSTIA - South African Deep-Sea Trawling Industry Association. http://www.sadstia.co.za/.

SANBI, DEA, DST, NRF, and ACEP. 2019. Marine Protected Areas South Africa. https://www.marineprotectedareas.org.za/.

Strømme, T., M. R. Lipinski, and P. Kainge. 2016. Life cycle of hake and likely management implications. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 26:235–248. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11160-015-9415-9.

The Fish Site. 2014. Namibia Officially Launches Hake Management Plan. https://thefishsite.com/articles/namibia- officially-launches-hake-management-plan.

United Nations. 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. Pages 1–30. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.

United Nations. 1995. AGREEMENT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA OF 10 DECEMBER 1982 RELATING TO THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF STRADDLING FISH STOCKS AND HIGHLY MIGRATORY FISH STOCKS. Pages 1–40. https://documents-dds- ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N95/274/67/PDF/N9527467.pdf?OpenElement.

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 177 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

10 List of Vessels & Companies in Unit of Certification 10.1 South African Deep Sea Trawl Industry Association (SADSTIA) Members

Vessel Name Registered Owner

African Queen Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd (Ziyabuya Fishing)

Allin Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd (Noord Kaap Visserye)

Andromeda Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd

Armana Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd

Avro Warrior Irvin & Johnson Limited

Basani Basani Marine (Pty) Ltd

Beatrice Marine Oceana Group Limited (Amawandle Hake)

Bluebell Irvin & Johnson Limited

Boetie Bert Ramsauer/Dyer Eiland Visserye (Pty) Ltd

Boronia Irvin & Johnson Limited Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd (New South Africa Casablanca Fishing) Codesa 1 Xhantilomzi Fishing Pty Ltd

Compass Challenger Oceana Group Limited (Compass Trawling Pty Ltd)

Echalar Offshore Fishing Co (Pty) Ltd

Flame Thorn Irvin & Johnson Limited

Forest Lily Irvin & Johnson Limited

Foxglove Irvin & Johnson Limited

Freesia Irvin & Johnson Limited

Fuchsia Irvin & Johnson Limited

Harvest Atlantic Peace Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Harvest Elita Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Harvest Florita Vuna Fishing Company (Pty) Ltd

Harvest Gavina Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Harvest Georgina Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Harvest Kirstina Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Harvest Krotoa Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Harvest Lindiwe Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Harvest Atlantic Hope Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Harvest Nandi Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Harvest Saldanha Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 178 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

Vessel Name Registered Owner

Harvest Selina Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Harvest Veronica Sea Harvest Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Isabella Marine Oceana Group Limited (Amawandle Hake)

Khulisa Eyethu Pescanova

Laverne Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd

Lee Anne Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd (Selecta Sea Products Lepanto (Pty) Ltd) Lincoln Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd/ (Quayfish Pty Ltd)

Lobelia Irvin & Johnson Limited

Lucerne Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd

Marigold Eyethu Fishing (Pty) Ltd

Marretje Eyethu Fishing

Okambahe Mallory Trade Pty Ltd

Portunity Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd (Noordkaap Visserye)

Realeka Oceana Ltd (Blue Continent Products/Pioneer Fishing)

Sandile Oceana Ltd (Blue Continent Products)

Sistro Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd (Sistro Trawling)

Stevia Irvin & Johnson Limited

Svein Jonsson Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd (Sentrawl)

Toralla Oceana (Blue Continent Products)

Vuna Elita Vuna Fishing Company (Pty) Ltd

Ferox Irvin & Johnson Limited

Umlobi Irvin & Johnson Limited

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 179 of 180 www.lr.org LR Announcement Comment Draft Report South African Hake Trawl Fishery

10.2 South East Coast Inshore Fishing Association (SECIFA) Members

Vessel Name Registered Owner

Amsteldiep Sea Vuna Fishing

Christelle Sea Vuna Fishing

Vuna Imbongi Sea Vuna Fishing

Vuna Liesa Sea Vuna Fishing

Lady Imelda Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd

Leeukop Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd

Leonora Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd

Lindiwe Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd

Sisters Viking Fishing (Deep-Sea) Pty Ltd

Oupa Joewie Eyethu Fishing

Marigold Eyethu Fishing

Cape Cross BMC Visserye

Cape Vidal BMC Visserye

Cape Maclear Nkunga Fishing

Elke M Chetty’s Fisheries

Avro Warrior Irvin & Johnson Limited

Boetie Bert Dyer Eiland Visserye

MSC FCP 2.1 Template CRV2 LR220319 Page 180 of 180 www.lr.org