MOODY MARINE LTD

Ref: 82061

Assessors: J. Andrews and M. Pawson

MSC Assessment Report for the Bristol Channel Bass Trawl Fishery

Client: North Devon Fishermen’s Association

Version 4: Final Report

Certification Body: Client Contact: Moody Marine Ltd John Butterwith Moody International Certification North Devon Fishermen’s Association Merline House Quo Vadis House Stanier Way Slade Wyvern Business Park Bideford Derby DE21 6BF N. Devon UK EX39 3LZ

Tel: +44 (0) 1633 544663 Tel: +44 (0) 1237 472098 Fax: +44 (0) 1633 675020

FN 82061 v4 Page 1 CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY...... 6

2 INTRODUCTION ...... 7

2 .1 THE FISHERY PROPOSED FOR CERTIFICATION ...... 7 2 .2 REPORT STRUCTURE AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 9 2 .3 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS ATTENDED ...... 10 2 .4 OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 10 2 .5 LEGISLATION CITED ...... 14 2.5.1 UK Legislation ...... 14 2.5.2 EC Legislation...... 15 3 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE REPORT ...... 16

4 BACKGROUND TO THE FISHERY ...... 17

4 .1 HISTORY OF THE FISHERY...... 17 4 .2 FLEET AND GEAR DESCRIPTION...... 18 5 THE TARGET SPECIES...... 20

5 .1 BIOLOGY...... 20 5.1.1 Distribution in space & time...... 20 5.1.2 Spawning ...... 20 5.1.3 Recruitment ...... 21 5.1.4 Feeding...... 21 5 .2 STOCK STATUS...... 22 5.2.1 Assessment unit...... 22 5.2.2 Assessment of stock...... 23 5.2.3 Biological Reference points...... 27 5.2.4 Scientific background to management advice for sea bass ...... 27 5 .3 DISCARDING OF BASS...... 29 6 ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS...... 30

6 .1 OVERVIEW...... 30 6 .2 RETAINED NON-TARGET SPECIES...... 30 6.2.1 Status ...... 30 6.2.2 Management strategy ...... 30 6.2.3 Information and Monitoring...... 31 6 .3 DISCARDED NON-TARGET SPECIES ...... 31 6.3.1 Status ...... 31 6.3.2 Management strategy ...... 31 6.3.3 Information and Monitoring...... 32 6 .4 ENDANGERED, THREATENED & PROTECTED SPECIES...... 32 6 .5 HABITATS ...... 33 6 .6 ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS ...... 35 7 FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK...... 37

7 .1 OVERVIEW...... 37 7 .2 ADMINISTRATIVE AND CUSTOMARY FRAMEWORK ...... 37 7.2.1 European Union ...... 37 7.2.2 Marine Management Organisation ...... 37 7.2.3 Welsh Assembly Government...... 37 7.2.4 Sea Fisheries Committees...... 38 7.2.5 Environment Agency...... 39 7 .3 LEGISLATION AND REGULATION ...... 39 7.3.1 European Union legislation ...... 40 7.3.2 National (UK and Welsh) legislation ...... 40 7.3.3 Sea Fisheries Committee Byelaws ...... 42

FN 82061 v4 Page 2 7.3.4 Long term objectives...... 45 7.3.5 Incentives for sustainable fishing ...... 45 7 .4 FISHERY SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ...... 45 7.4.1 Fishery specific objectives...... 45 7.4.2 Decision making processes...... 46 7.4.3 Compliance & enforcement ...... 46 7.4.4 Research Plan...... 47 7.4.5 Monitoring and evaluation...... 47 8 OTHER FISHERIES AFFECTING TARGET STOCK...... 49

9 ACTION TAKEN BY THE CLIENT ...... 50

9 .1 VOLUNTARY MEASURES ...... 50 9 .2 TRIAL OF SQUARE MESHES IN TRAWLS ...... 50 10 STANDARD USED ...... 51

10 .1 PRINCIPLE 1 ...... 51 10 .2 PRINCIPLE 2 ...... 51 10 .3 PRINCIPLE 3 ...... 52 11 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION...... 54

11 .1 EVALUATION TEAM ...... 54 11 .2 PREVIOUS CERTIFICATION EVALUATIONS ...... 55 11 .3 INSPECTIONS OF THE FISHERY...... 55 12 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION...... 57

12 .1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ...... 57 12.1.1 Stakeholder input to Risk Based Framework Assessment ...... 57 12 .2 STAKEHOLDER ISSUES ...... 57 13 OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING ...... 58

13 .1 INTRODUCTION TO SCORING METHODOLOGY ...... 58 13 .2 THE RISK BASED FRAMEWORK...... 58 14 LIMIT OF IDENTIFICATION OF LANDINGS FROM THE FISHERY...... 60

14 .1 TRACEABILITY WITHIN THE FISHERY...... 60 14 .2 AT-SEA PROCESSING ...... 60 14 .3 POINTS OF LANDING...... 60 14 .4 ELIGIBILITY TO ENTER CHAINS OF CUSTODY...... 60 14 .5 TARGET ELIGIBILITY DATE...... 60 15 ASSESSMENT RESULTS ...... 62

15 .1 CONDITIONS...... 62 16 SCORING TABLES...... 77

16 .1 CONVENTIONAL ASSESSMENT ...... 78 16 .2 RISK-BASED FRAMEWORK ASSESSMENT:...... 112 16.2.1 Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)...... 112 16.2.2 Productivity –Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)...... 116 17 PEER REVIEWS ...... 119

17 .1 PEER REVIEWER BIOGRAPHIES ...... 119 17 .2 PEER REVIEW REPORT A ...... 119 17 .3 PEER REVIEW REPORT B ...... 122 ANNEX: MINOR EDITORIAL COMMENTS REQUIRING ATTENTION...... 128

18 CLIENT ACTION PLAN...... 130

FN 82061 v4 Page 3 19 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ...... 131

19 .1 COMMENTS DURING SITE VISIT...... 131 19.1.1 Notes of meeting with Angling representatives ...... 132 19.1.2 Notes of meeting with Commercial Fishing representatives ...... 134 19 .2 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS...... 136 19.2.1 Comments on the assessment ...... 136 19.2.2 Comments on peer review team composition ...... 136 19.2.3 Comments on Public Comment Draft Report...... 136 19.2.4 MML Response to Comments...... 140 20 REGISTERED COMPANIES / VESSELS WITHIN UNIT OF CERTIFICATION: ELIGIBLE TO SELL MSC CERTIFIED PRODUCT...... 144

FN 82061 v4 Page 4 List of Figures

Figure 1 Map illustrating the unit of certification area (shaded) and the key locations mentioned in this report...... 8 Figure 2: Distribution of the European bass, Dicentrarchus labrax (from www.fishbase.org)...... 20 Figure 3: The main migration routes of adult bass within and between the sub-populations (hatched), viz: North Sea, English Channel, English and Welsh west coast, Irish waters and Bay of Biscay (after Pawson et al., 2007b)...... 22 Figure 4: Sea bass year class strength indices based on numbers of 2-4 year-olds caught during Solent pre-recruit trawl surveys...... 24 Figure 5: Seabed habitats in the unit of certification area (from Barne et al, 1996) ...... 33 Figure 6: Special Areas of Conservation (blue) and Special Protection Areas (purple) within and adjacent to the unit of certification area (GIS data from JNCC website)...... 34 Figure 7: The area covered by the “Finding Sanctuary”project, which is establishing the strategic framework for identifying statutory MCZs in part of the UoC area (Source: Finding Sanctuary, 2010)...... 35 Figure 8: The “Welsh zone” established in 2010 by The Welsh Zone (Boundaries and Transfer of Functions) Order 2010. The Welsh Assembly Government has the competence to manage fisheries within this zone...... 38 Figure 9: Illustrating the location of bass nursery areas in the unit of certification area...... 41 Figure 10: Voluntary marine conservation area established by the North Devon Fishermens’ Association...... 50 Figure 11 Diagram summarising the procedure for using the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology (FAM) and the Risk Based Framework (RBF) to assess a fishery, and the circumstances for using Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) and Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) to assess eligible Performance Indicators ...... 59

List of Tables

Table 1: List of vessels in the unit of certification...... 9 Table 2: Nominal landings (t) of bass by country in ICES Divisions VIIa, f, g (source: Cefas, provided to ICES WGNEW 2010)...... 18 Table 3: Bass catch statistics for three recreational angling boats fishing off South Wales, 2005- 2009 (source SYSAC)...... 26 Table 4: Summary of key fisheries regulations relevant to the unit of certification...... 43 Table 5: Scores for the Bristol Channel Sea Bass Trawl Fishery. Scores shaded green attain the unconditional pass level. Yellow shading indicates a conditional pass. Red shading indicates a fail...... 76 Table 6: Results of Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis for target, retained and discarded species in the unit of certification...... 116 Table 7: Weightings assigned to the different fishing methods removing bass from the unit of certification stock. Weightings are based on landings data and anecdotal information...... 117 Table 8: Selectivity attributes and scores used for this unit of certification, and rationale for scores awarded in PSA analysis...... 117

FN 82061 v4 Page 5 1 SUMMARY

1. This report sets out the results of the assessment of the Bristol Channel Bass Trawl Fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The assessment was carried out over the period June 2009 to September 2010.

2. The assessment was carried out by a team of two assessors: Jim Andrews and Mike Pawson. The assessment of Principle 1 was led by Mike Pawson; Principle 2 was shared between the two assessors (Mike Pawson led the assessment of PI 2.1 and 2.2, Jim Andrews led on 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5); and Principle 3 was led by Jim Andrews. A full account of the assessment team members’ relevant experience is set out in section 11 .1 of this report.

3. The evaluation process for this assessment involved gathering information relevant to the fishery during site visits in Appledore, Exeter, Plymouth, Brixham and Swansea; discussions with experts and stakeholders; and reviewing relevant literature. The assessment team then compiled a draft report, and met to ‘score’ the performance of the fishery. The draft report that was produced by the team has been considered by the client, [subject to peer review, and then published for stakeholder comment (in February 2011).

4. The main strength of this fishery are that the stock has been well researched and studied over a considerable time. The client fleet is made up of small vessels that operate within a well defined regulatory regime.

5. The assessment team identified some weaknesses in the fishery which presently prevent it from attaining the MSC standard at present. A series of conditions that could address these weaknesses are set out in section 15 .1 of this report. These weaknesses can be briefly summarised:-

 The stock status cannot be accurately determined at present. The last assessment of stock status was carried out in 2008 using information dating only to 2006. At that time the stock status was considered to be good, but current status is uncertain.

 The effect of the fishery on non-target species (particularly discards of plaice), coupled with the absence of a clear management strategy to address discarding were causes of concern. Recently some information has been gathered to provide an insight into this issue (43 species of fish are discarded from the fishery), but there is limited information about routine levels of discarding over a sustained period of time.

 The overall management regime for European bass is sound, but lacks formal objectives and harvest control rules that are appropriate for managing an inshore bass trawl fishery.

6. The assessment team has therefore concluded that this fishery should not presently be recommended for certification according to the MSC Principles & criteria. However conditions have been identified which, if addressed, could improve the score awarded and enable the fishery to attain the MSC standard within a relatively short period of time. These conditions are set out in section 15 .1 of this report.

FN 82061 v4 Page 6 2 INTRODUCTION

This report sets out the results of the assessment of the Bristol Channel Sea Bass Trawl Fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing.

2 .1 The fishery proposed for certification

The client for this assessment is the North Devon Fishermen’s Association (NDFA). The vessels that are proposed for inclusion in this assessment are set out in Table 1.

The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specify that the unit of certification is "The fishery or fish stock (=biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (=vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock)" The fishery proposed for certification is therefore defined as:

Species: Bass, Dicentrarchus labrax Also known as: Sea Bass, European Sea Bass. Geographical Area: Bristol Channel, east of a line from St Agnes Head to St David’s Head (see Figure 1). Method of Capture: Otter Trawl Stock UK West coast stock occupying ICES Divisions VIIa, VIIf and VIIg Management: Technical measures and minimum legal size for fish landings. Client Group: NDFA Members only

In the course of the certification it is possible that further vessels may join the client group. This would be in accordance with the MSC’s stated desire to allow fair and equitable access to the certification, provided that these vessels operate sustainably according to the assessment of the fishery.

FN 82061 v4 Page 7 Figure 1 Map illustrating the unit of certification area (shaded) and the key locations mentioned in this report.

FN 82061 v4 Page 8 Table 1: List of vessels in the unit of certification.

Vessel Registration Number & Length. Main Port of Landing CERULEAN BD 1 ( >10m ) APPLEDORE FLOWING TIDE II LH 153 ( >10m ) SAUNDERSFOOT / MILFORD HAVEN PACEMAKER GY 165 ( >15m APPLEDORE HANNAH MARIE BD 33 ( <10m ) APPLEDORE OUR JOSIE GRACE BD 287 ( <15m ) ILFRACOMBE OUR OLIVIA BELLE BD 277 ( <15m ) ILFRACOMBE SUE ELLEN BM 211 ( >10m } SWANSEA JEAN HOWARD PW 150 ( >10 m ) APPLEDORE HELCON PH 5562 ( <10m ) APPLEDORE ANNA ( <10m ) APPLEDORE ELIXABETH N* PZ 100 ( >20m ) NEWLYN NELLIE* PZ 10 ( >20m ) NEWLYN BRUNO OF SUTTO PH 58 ( >10m ) APPLEDORE

* These vessels principally operate out of Newlyn. Their inclusion in the chain of custody for the unit of certification will depend on an assessment of the traceability of product landed by them (see section 14 .3 )

2 .2 Report Structure and Assessment Process

The aims of the assessment are to determine the degree of compliance of the fishery with the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, as set out in Section 8.

This report sets out:  the background to the fishery under assessment and the context within which it operates in relation to the other areas where the target species (bass) is fished  the qualifications and experience of the team undertaking the assessment  the standard used (MSC Principles and Criteria)  stakeholder consultation carried out. Stakeholders include all those parties with an interest in the management of the fishery and include fishers, management bodies, scientists and environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (ENGO’s)  the methodology used to assess (‘score’) the fishery against the MSC Standard.  a scoring table with the Scoring Indicators adopted by the assessment team and Scoring Guidelines which aid the assessment team in allocating scores to the fishery. The commentary in this table then sets out the position of the fishery in relation to these Scoring Indicators.

The intention of the earlier sections of the report is to provide the reader with background information to interpret the scoring commentary in context.

Finally, as a result of the scoring, the Certification Recommendation of the assessment team is presented, together with any conditions attached to certification.

In draft form, this report has been subject to critical review by appropriate, independent, scientists (‘peer review’). The comments of these scientists are appended to this report. The assessment team’s responses are given in the peer review texts and, where amendments are made to the report on the

FN 82061 v4 Page 9 basis of peer review comments, these are also noted in the peer review text. Following peer review, the report has been released for public scrutiny on the MSC website.

The report, containing the recommendation of the assessment team, any further stakeholder comments and the peer review comments, have been considered by the Moody Marine Governing Board (a body independent of the assessment team). The Governing Board then made the final certification determination on behalf of Moody Marine Ltd.

It should be noted that, in response to comments by peer reviewers, stakeholders and the Moody Marine Governing Board, some points of clarification may be added to the final report.

Finally, the complete report, containing the Moody Marine Ltd Determination and all amendments, will be released for further stakeholder scrutiny.

2 .3 Stakeholder meetings attended

Information used in the main assessment has been obtained from interviews and correspondence with stakeholders in this fishery, notably:

I1. Interview with John Butterwith, Chief Executive, North Devon Fishermen’s Association, 9th February 2010. I2. Interview with Tony Rutherford, Managing Director, Bideford Fisheries Ltd, 9th February 2010. I3. Interview with Mr R.L. Talbot, Owner, FV Cerulean, 9th February 2010. I4. Interview with Scott Wharton, Owner, FV Our Josie Grace, 9th February 2010. I5. Interview with John Le Balleur, BASS Society, 9th February 2010. I6. Interview with Ali Hood, John Richardson, Rich Hurst, Shark Trust, 10th February 2010. I7. Interview with Roger Covey, Senior Marine Specialist, Natural England, 10th February 2010. I8. Interview with Julian Roberts, District Inspector, Marine Management Organisation, 10th February 2010. I9. Interview with W. Lawrence, Senior Fishery Officer & FPV Skipper, Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, 10th February 2010. I10. Interview with E. Derriman, Chief Fishery Officer, Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee, 10th February 2010. I11. Interview with Stuart Evans, Fisheries Policy, Welsh Assembly Government, 11th February 2010. I12. Interview with Terry Allen, Fisheries Enforcement – Welsh Assembly Government, 11th February 2010. I13. Interview with Mark Stafford, South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee, 11th February 2010. I14. Meeting with sea angling stakeholders (20 individuals), Swansea. 11th February 2010. I15. Meeting with commercial fishing stakeholders (17 individuals), Swansea. 11th February 2010.

2 .4 Other information sources

Published information and unpublished reports used during the assessment are listed below:

Anon, 2003. Development of Elasmobranch Assessments, DELASS. DG Fish Study Contract 99/055: 708 p B.A.S.S., 2004. The Bass Anglers' Sportfishing Society Bass Management Plan, A review of the recreational and economic status of bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in England and Wales and proposals for revised management of the bass fishery, (www.ukbass.com), September 2004, 56 pp.

FN 82061 v4 Page 10 Barne, J.H., Robson, C.F., Kaznowska, S.S., & Doody, J.P., eds. 1995. Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom. Region 12 Wales: Margam to Little Orme. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Barne, J.H., Robson, C.F., Kaznowska, S.S., Doody, J.P., Davidson, N.C., & Buck, A.L., eds. 1996. Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom. Region 11 The Western Approaches: Falmouth Bay to Kenfig. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (Coastal Directories Series.) Castilho, R., and Mcandrew, B.J., 1998. Population structure of sea bass in Portugal: evidence from allozymes. Journal of Fish Biology, 53: 1038-1049. Catchpole, T., 2009. Bristol Channel bass selectivity. Final Report. Fisheries Science Partnership 2009/10. Viewed at: http://www.cefas.co.uk/media/345662/fsp_bass_09_report.final.pdf Defra, 2005. Securing the Benefits. The joint UK response to the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit Net Benefits report on the future of the fishing industry in the UK. Viewed at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/documents/fisheries/securingbenefits.pdf Dunn, M. R., and Potten, S. D., 1994. National survey of bass angling, A report to the Ministry of Agriculture Fish and Food. University of Portsmouth, 45 pp. plus 7 Appendices. Dunn, M., Potten, S., Radford, A., and Whitmarsh, D., 1989. An economic appraisal of the fishery for bass in England and Wales. Research Report, R14, CEMARE, University of Portsmouth, UK. 217 pp. EC (2009); On a European Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. COM(2009) 40 Final. Viewed at http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0040:FIN:EN:PDF Elliott,M., Nedwell, S., Jones, N.V., Read, S.J., Cutts, N.D., Hemingway, K.L., 1998. Intertidal Sand and Mudflats & Subtidal Mobile Sandbanks (volume II). An overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. Scottish Association for Marine Science (UK Marine SACs Project). 151 Pages. Available for download from http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/publications.htm. Finding Sanctuary (2010): Project Area. Viewed at http://www.finding- sanctuary.org/page/home.html Fritsch, M. , Morizur, Y., Lambert, E., Bonhomme, F., and Guinand, B. 2006. Assessment of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax, L.) stock delimitation in the Bay of Biscay and the English Channel based on mark-recapture and genetic data. Fisheries Research, 83: 123-132 Great Britain - Parliament, 1989a. The Sea Fish (Specified Sea Area) (Regulation of Nets and Prohibition of Fishing Methods) Order 1989, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London (Statutory Instrument 1989/1284), 4 pp. Great Britain - Parliament, 1989b. The Undersized Bass Order, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London (Statutory Instrument 1989/1285), 3 pp. Great Britain - Parliament, 1990. The Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibitions of Fishing) Order, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London (Statutory Instrument 1990/1156), 6 pp. Gubbay, S. & Knapman, P.A. 1999. A review of the effects of fishing within UK European marine sites. English Nature (UK Marine SACs Project). 134 pages. Available for download from http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/publications.htm Holden, M. J., Williams, T., 1974. The biology, movements and population dynamics of bass, Dicentrarchus labrax, in English waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K., 54, 91-107. ICES, 2002. Report of the Study Group on Sea Bass, March 2002. ICES CM 2002/ACFM: 11 Ref G, 59 pp.

FN 82061 v4 Page 11 ICES, 2004. Report of the Study Group on Bass, Lowestoft, England 18-22 August 2003, ICES CM 2004/ACFM:04, 73 pp. ICES, 2009. Plaice in Divisions VIIf & g (Celtic Sea). Viewed at http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2009/2009/ple-celt.pdf IUCN, 2010. Inclusion of Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias in Appendix II. Viewed at: http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/CoP14/AnalysesEN/cites_prop_16_revised.pdf Jennings, S. & Kaiser, M.J., 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. 34 Marine Biology 201 Jennings, S., and Pawson, M. G., 1992. The origin and recruitment of bass, Dicentrarchus labrax, larvae to nursery areas. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K., 72: 199–212. JNCC, 2010(b): Common Standards Monitoring (CSM). Viewed at http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page- 2217 JNCC, 2010(c). Condition of features by reporting category. Viewed at http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3595 JNCC, 2010: Marine, coastal & halophytic habitats – comparison of UK resource and SAC distribution of Annex I habitat 1110 Sandanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time. Viewed at http://www.jncc.gov.uk/publications/JNCC312/habitat.asp?FeatureIntCode=H1110 JNCC, 2010a: Marine Protected Areas – why protect our marine environment? Viewed at http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4524 Kelley, D. F., 1986. Bass nurseries on the west coast of the UK. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K., 66: 439–464. Kelley, D. F., 1987. Food of bass in U.K. waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K., 67: 275-286. Kelley, D. F., 1988. Age determination in bass and assessment of growth and year-class strength. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K.., 68: 179-214. Kelley, D., 1979. Bass populations and movements on the west coast of U.K., Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K., 59: 896-936.1979 Kelley, D., 2002. Abundance, growth and first-winter survival of young bass in nurseries of south- west England. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K., 82: 307 – 319. Kennedy, M., and Fitzmaurice, P., 1972. The biology of the bass Dicentrarchus labrax in Irish Waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K., 52: 557-597 Kupschus, S, Smith, M. and Walmsley, S. A., 2008. An update of the UK bass assessments 2007: Working Document for the ICES WGNEW 2008, 37 pp. Lancaster, J. E., 1991. The feeding ecology of juvenile bass Dicentrarchus labrax (L.). PhD Thesis. University of Wales Swansea, 281 pp. MAFF, 1990. Bass Nursery Areas and other Conservation Measures. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, Welsh Office Agriculture Department. MAFF Publications, London, 15 pp. Masski, H., 1998. Identification de Frayères et Etude des Structures de Population de Turbot (Psetta maxima L.) et du Bar (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) en Manche Ouest et dans les Zones Avoisinantes. Thèse présentée a la Faculte des Sciences de Brest. Universite de Bretagne Occdentale. 136pp + annexes. Methot, R. D., 1990. Synthesis model: an adaptable framework for analysis of diverse stock assessment data. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Application of Stock Assessment Techniques to Gadids, pp. 259–277. INPFC Bulletin, 50.

FN 82061 v4 Page 12 MMO, 2010a. Registered Buyers and sellers. Viewed at http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/monitoring/rbs.htm. May 2010. Naciri, M., Lemaire, C., Borsa, P., and Bonhomme, F., 1999. Genetic study of the Atlantic/Mediterranean transition in sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Journal of Heredity, 90: 591- 596. North Devon Fishermen’s Association, 2009. Sustainable fishing from the indigenous fleet fishing the Bristol Channel. Pawson, M. G. 1992. "Climatic influences on the spawning success, growth and recruitment of bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) in British Waters". I.C.E.S. marine Science Symposium. 195: 388-392. Pawson, M. G., and Pickett, G. D., 1987. The bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and management of its fishery in England and Wales. MAFF Laboratory Leaflet, 59. 38 pp. Pawson, M. G., and Pickett, G. D., 1996. The annual pattern of condition and maturity in bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L) in waters around the UK. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U.K., 76: 107–126. Pawson, M. G., Kelley, D. F., and Pickett, G. D. 1987. The distribution and migrations of bass Dicentrarchus labrax L. in waters around England and Wales as shown by tagging. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U.K., 67: 183–217. Pawson, M. G., Kupschus, S., and Pickett, G. D. 2007a. The status of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) stocks around England and Wales, derived using a separable catch-at-age model, and implications for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, 346–356. Pawson, M. G., Pickett, G. D., and Smith, M. T., 2005. The role of technical measures in the recovery of the UK sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) fishery 1980 - 2002. Fisheries Research, 76: 91 - 105. Pawson, M. G., Pickett, G. D., Lebalour, J, Brown, M., and Fritsch, M. 2007b. Migrations, fishery interactions, and management units of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), in Northwest Europe. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, 332–345. Pickett, G. D., Brown, M., Harley, B., and Dunn, M. R., 2002. Surveying fish populations in the Solent and adjacent harbours using the CEFAS bass trawl. CEFAS Science Series Technical Report, 118. 16 pp. Pickett, G. D., Eaton, D. R., Cunningham, S., Dunn, M. R., Potten, S. D., and Whitmarsh, D. 1995. An appraisal of the UK bass fishery and its management. Laboratory Leaflet MAFF Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft, 75: 47pp. Pickett, G. D., Kelley D. F. and Pawson, M. G. 2004. The patterns of recruitment of sea bass, Dicentrarchus labrax L. from nursery areas in England and Wales and implications for fisheries management. Fisheries Research 68: 329-342. Pickett, G. D., Pawson, M. G., 1994. Sea Bass, Biology, exploitation and management. Chapman and Hall, London, Fish and Fisheries Ser. 12, 358 pp. Pickett, G.D., 1990. Assessment of the UK bass fishery using a log-book-based catch recording system. Fish. Res. Tech. Rep., MAFF Direct. Fish. Res. Lowestoft 90, 33 pp. Reis, E. G., and Pawson, M. G., 1992. Determination of gill net selectivity for bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) using commercial catch data. Fisheries Research, 13: 173–187. Reynolds, W. J., Lancaster, J. E., and Pawson, M. G. 2003. Patterns of spawning and recruitment of sea bass to Bristol Channel nurseries in relation to the 1996 "Sea Empress" oil spill. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K., 83: 1163 - 1170. Roblin, C. and Bruslé, J., 1984. Le régime alimentaire des alevins et juvéniles de loup

FN 82061 v4 Page 13 (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) des lagunes littorales du Golfe du Lion (étangs Roussillonnais, France). Vie et Milieu 34: 195-207. Symes, D. & Phillipson, J., 1998. Fishing within limits: inshore fisheries management and the concept of local preference. In: Symes, D., 1998 (Ed). Property rights and regulatory systems in fisheries. London: Blackwell Science. 268pp at 201-215. Thompson, B. M., Harrop, R. T. 1987. The distribution and abundance of bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) eggs and larvae in the English Channel and Southern North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association U. K., 67, 263–274. Turnpenny, A. W. H., 1988. Fish impingement at estuarine power stations and its significance to commercial fishing. Journal of Fish Biology, 33 (Suppl. A), 103–110. UK BAP, 2010. UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Marine Species. Viewed at http://www.ukbap.org.uk/newprioritylist.aspx UK Cabinet Office (2004) Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing. 168pp. www.strategy.gov.uk Walmsley, S., & Pawson, M., unpubl. Length distribution of bass discards in the UK trawl fishery. Unpublished report, Cefas Lowestoft, 18pp. Welsh Assembly Government, 2009. Protecting Welsh Seas. A draft strategy for marine protected areas in Wales. 27pp. Viewed at http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/consultation/090916marineprotectareasen.pdf

2 .5 Legislation cited

2.5.1 UK Legislation

The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 (1966 c.38) The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (1967 c.84) The Sea Fisheries (Byelaws) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No 1785) The Sea Fish (Specified Sea Area) (Regulation of Nets and Prohibition of Fishing Methods) Order (SI1989 No1284). The Undersized Bass Order (SI1989 No1285), 3 pp. The Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibitions of Fishing) Order (SI1990 No1156). The Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) (Variation) Order 1992 (SI1992 No3027). Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act 1992 (1992 c.36) The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No 2716). The Environment Act 1995 (1995 c.25) The Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) (Variation) Order 1999 (SI1999 No75). The South-west Territorial Waters (Prohibition of Pair Trawling) Order 2004 (SI2004 No 3397) The Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 1605) The Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites (Wales) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 No 1495) (W.145) The Undersized Bass Order 2007 (SI 2007 No 809)

FN 82061 v4 Page 14 Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (2009 c23) The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (Commencement No.1, Consequential, Transitional and Savings Provisions) (England and Wales) Order 2010. (SI 2010 No 630 (c.42)). The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (2006 c.16). The Welsh Zone (Boundaries and Transfer of Functions) Order 2010 (SI 2010 No 760) Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, 2010. Byelaws. Viewed at: http://www.devonsfc.co.uk/byelaws/byelaws.pdf Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee, 2010. Current Cornwall Sea Fisheries Byelaws. Viewed at http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=12448

2.5.2 EC Legislation Regulation 850/98/EC for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms. OJ 1998 L 125/1 Directive 92/43/EC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. OJ 1992 L 206/7 Directive 147/2009/EC on the conservation of wild birds. OJ 2010 L 20/7

FN 82061 v4 Page 15 3 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE REPORT

BASS Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society Capacity unit An index of vessel fishing capacity calculated using the formula: (overall length in metres x breadth in metres) + (engine power in kW x 0.45) Cefas Centre for Environmment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort Defra Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs EC European Community (the legislative pillar of the European Union). EU European Union (established by the Treaty on European Union). FSP Fisheries Science Partnership LPUE Landings Per Unit Effort MCZ Marine Conservation Zone Métier A fishery unit employing a specific gear in a particular fishing area (and season), within which the species composition in the catch is relatively consistent (in this case, gill netting and trawling for bass are two métiers). MNR Marine Nature Reserve (superceded by Marine Conservation Zones). MSC Marine Stewardship Council NDFA North Devon Fishermen’s Association UoC Unit of Certification (the species, area, fleet and gear combination under assessment).

FN 82061 v4 Page 16 4 BACKGROUND TO THE FISHERY

4 .1 History of the Fishery Around England and Wales, sea bass are mainly caught in a directed fishery between April and November, from small boats using a variety of fishing methods close to the shore and by anglers operating from boats and the shore. Since the early 1980s, French mid-water pair-trawlers and (more recently) British vessels have targeted pre-spawning and spawning aggregations of adult bass in winter offshore in the western English Channel and eastern Celtic Sea (Pawson et al, 2007a).

Partly because of the high prices offered for bass, and the vulnerability of juveniles in inshore nursery areas, the commercial bass fishery developed rapidly in the late 1970s and 1980s. Commercial landings of bass into England and Wales remained around 600 t between 1985 and 1992, rose rapidly to 2 200 t in 1994, then fluctuated between 1 050 t and 1 900 t (mean around 1 500 t) until exceeding 2 200 t in 2004 (Pawson et al., 2007b). During this period, most landings were from nets and lines, whereas UK pair trawlers targeting bass in winter contributed some 5–13% of total landings between 1996 and 2004. French pair-trawl landings from the same fishery ranged from 530 to 1000 t over the same period. Catches of bass taken by recreational anglers have comprised a substantial part of the overall landings, and estimates for 1986/7 (Dunn et al., 1989) and 1992/3 (Dunn and Potten, 1994) show similar values (around 415 t).

Total international landings of bass from the Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and Bristol Channel (Divisions VII a, f, g) estimated on behalf of ICES are shown in Table 2, which includes the additional UK catch derived from the Cefas logbook scheme, between 1985-2006 (but not in 2007 and 2008). During the period 2004 – 2008, English and Welsh vessels generally accounted for some 80% of the annual total international landings of bass caught along the west coast of England and Wales.

FN 82061 v4 Page 17 Table 2: Nominal landings (t) of bass by country in ICES Divisions VIIa, f, g (source: Cefas, provided to ICES WGNEW 2010).

Year Belgium France Ireland Scotland UK (Engl. Total & Wales) 1984 1 211 212 1985 13 101 114 1986 2 256 258 1987 24 3 280 307 1988 7 123 130 1989 14 189 203 1990 14 147 161 1991 75 211 286 1992 43 171 214 1993 14 512 526 1994 9 845 854 1995 40 <0.5 405 445 1996 41 <0.5 316 357 1997 31 <0.5 531 562 1998 195 <0.5 481 676 1999 28 <0.5 423 451 2000 56 <0.5 474 530 2001 54 491 545 2002 55 344 399 2003 17 16 <0.5 455 488 2004 34 49 2 740 835 2005 54 34 1 436 525 2006 55 39 334 428 2007* 44 28 168* 240* 2008* 63 58 180* 301*

Note: * These figures do not include Cefas logbook data and therefore underestimate total landings.

4 .2 Fleet and Gear Description The fleet under assessment comprises the trawlers that are members of the North Devon Fishermens’ Association, which are listed in Table 1. All of these vessels use otter trawls to fish for bass. They are mostly under 15m registered length, with three vessels over 20m long. Most of the vessels operate out of ports on the North Devon coast, although one vessel is based in South Wales, and two of the fleet are based in Newlyn (and fish for bass in the Bristol Channel only during the summer).

The fishing gear and methods used to trawl for bass in the Bristol Channel are different to those used for other species in the area (Interviews I3, I4). Bass trawl nets are generally rigged with a light footrope and with floats on the headrope to keep it high in the water column. The trawlers use a single trawl for bass (rather than twin-rigging, which is often the practice for other species) and aim to tow the gear rapidly, at between 3.5 and 4 knots.

The gear used in the fishery is described by Catchpole (2009). A single rig trawl with an 80mm cod end is typically used. The length and type of footrope used in the fishery is altered depending on vessel size and fishing conditions. An 80mm square mesh panel is fitting in the top sheet of these trawls to comply with EC Regulation 850/98. The size of this panel depends on vessel power: if

FN 82061 v4 Page 18 greater than 112kw (150hp) it must be at least 3m in length, and if less than 112kW it must be at least 2m long. Regulations also specify the construction and location of the SMP in the trawl.

The client fleet have proposed the use of a more selective trawl with a 100mm cod-end and 90mm SMP in both top and bottom sheets as a response to concerns about discarding. It is understood that this gear specification is not currently in use.

The main trawl fishery for bass in the Bristol Channel takes place in the summer months when fish aggregate around sand banks. The fleet tends to tow for 1 hour or less along the sandbanks, and may “hop” from one sandbank to another by partially recovering and then redeploying the gear.

The client fleet of trawlers landed 58.3t of bass from the Bristol Channel in 2008 and 43.1t in 2009.

The bass fishery in the Bristol Channel is also prosecuted by other commercial fishermen, using gill nets and fishing with rod and line, particularly along the South Wales Coast. Bass are also a highly prized recreational species. The fishery removals arising from these other activities are considered in section 8 .

FN 82061 v4 Page 19 5 THE TARGET SPECIES

5 .1 Biology

5.1.1 Distribution in space & time

Sea bass are distributed in Northeast Atlantic shelf waters from Norway, through the North Sea, Irish Sea, Celtic, Bay of Biscay to Northwest Africa, and in the Mediterranean Sea (Figure 2). Tagging studies around England, Wales and Ireland (Pawson, Kelly and Pickett, 1987; Pawson et al., 2007b), together with studies on geographical and seasonal patterns of feeding, condition and gonad development (Pawson and Pickett, 1996), have demonstrated that adult bass migrate between well- defined (usually inshore) feeding areas and pre-spawning and spawning areas which tend to be offshore to the south and west. Movement between the respective areas appeared to be relatively rapid and takes place as the water cools during October-December, when adult female bass seek out water above approximately 9 C.

Figure 2: Distribution of the European bass, Dicentrarchus labrax (from www.fishbase.org)

5.1.2 Spawning

Adult sea bass with fully developed gonads are caught by pelagic trawling offshore in the western English Channel and eastern Celtic Sea/outer Bristol Channel during January–March, where planktonic egg surveys have shown that sea bass spawn from February to May at a temperatures range of 8.5–11°C (Thompson and Harrop, 1987; Jennings and Pawson, 1992). Bass are broadcast spawners, and each female may produce up to half a million eggs per kg of total body weight (Mayer, 1987). These float free in the water column, hatching 4 - 9 days after fertilisation and at approximately 4 - 4.5 mm long (Jennings and Pawson 1991). Growth of juveniles in these nursery areas is strongly related to summer temperature, and survival of 0-groups through the first winter is affected by body size (and fat reserves) and is reduced at temperatures below 5–6°C (Lancaster 1991; Pawson 1992). The juvenile bass remain in these coastal nursery areas until they reach approximately 36 cm, at 4 or 5 years of age, when their movements become more wide-ranging and

FN 82061 v4 Page 20 they eventually adopt the adult feeding/spawning migration patterns (Pawson, Kelley and Pickett, 1987).

Tagging off south Cornwall in autumn indicated that, from April onwards, bass that had spawned around south west England migrated to summer feeding areas along the Welsh and north-west English coasts (Pawson et al., 1987). Studies on geographical and seasonal patterns of feeding, condition and gonad development of bass (Pawson and Pickett, 1996; Masski, 1998), and a repeat tagging exercise in 2000-2004 (Pawson et al., 2007b) confirmed that the spent fish move north and east onto feeding grounds at the end of spawning in April/May. Though the latter study revealed little change in the migration patterns of adult sea bass on the west coast compared with 20 years previously, reports of local, inshore, recaptures of tagged adult sea bass in the Irish Sea between November and April were scarce in the 1980s (2.8%), whereas this proportion is now much higher (14.6%). The authors suggest that the spawning migrations of adult sea bass may now be less distant from their summer feeding areas.

5.1.3 Recruitment Water currents carry the larval bass inshore, where they feed in the water column for two or three months before actively recruiting into nursery habitats. On the south and west coasts of the UK, sea bass post-larvae in excess of 15 mm recruit from June onwards into in estuaries, harbours and shallow bays (Jennings and Pawson, 1992; Reynolds et al., 2003), where their subsequent growth is strongly related to summer temperatures (Reynolds, Lancaster and Pawson, 2003). However, survival of age-0 (first year) sea bass through the first winter is reduced at temperatures below 5–6 C (Kelley, 2002; Lancaster, 1991), which may well explain the attraction of warm water for age-0 sea bass, especially in winter towards the north of their distribution, where age-0 sea bass may otherwise not survive.

Juvenile bass emigrate from these nursery areas at around 36 cm (aged 3-5 years, depending on growth) and, in contrast to the regular migrations shown by adult bass, a substantial proportion emigrate from their respective “stock” areas and disperse throughout large parts of the populations' distribution range, and do not necessarily recruit to their parent spawning stock (Pawson et al., 1987; Pickett, Kelley and Pawson, 2004). It appears that there is substantial mixing of sea bass at this stage throughout large parts of the populations' range, and pre-adult fish have been observed to emigrate from the Thames Estuary (southern North Sea) along the English Channel coast and even into the eastern Irish Sea.

Growth of sea bass is relatively slow and the species is long-lived (up to 30 years of age). Maturity is attained at around 4 - 7 years, at around 35 cm for males and 42 cm for females (Kennedy and Fitzmaurice, 1972; Pawson and Pickett, 1996).

5.1.4 Feeding Bass are opportunistic predators throughout life, feeding on the species of crustaceans and fish which are the most readily available in any particular environment (Pickett and Pawson, 1994. Bass larvae feed on small zooplankton, such as copepod nauplii, mysids and cladocerans, whilst 0-group bass take larger, epibenthic organisms that are abundant in the near-shore environment, particularly small crustaceans (isopods, amphipods and mysids, harpacticoid copepods, Corophium sp and gammarids), and even terrestrial insects and freshwater invertebrates (Roblin and Brusle,1984). Whilst small fish such as gobies and juvenile herring and sprat are found more regularly in the diet as the bass grow, crabs (particularly shore crabs Carcinus meanas) are the most common food of juvenile bass in the UK, followed by brown shrimp Crangon crangon. Kelley (1987) recorded roughly equal frequencies of fish and crustaceans in the diet of bass caught from the shore in south-west England, whilst Pickett and Pawson (1994) found a predominance of mackerel Scomber scombrus and pilchard Sardina pilchardus in the diet of bass taken 10-30 miles offshore, with shore crab and brown shrimp occurring at a similar frequency. In these two studies, only 3 bass, all adult, out of over 3000

FN 82061 v4 Page 21 specimens that had their stomach contents examined, were recorded as having eaten other bass (1 each). Low temperatures inhibit feeding in juvenile bass (Lancaster, 1991), whilst adults continue to feed throughout the year, except possibly when spawning (Pawson and Pickett, 1996).

Stock identity There is considerable mixing between sea bass sub-populations at pre-adult life stages due to larval drift and dispersal of pre-adults (Jennings and Pawson, 1992; Pickett et al., 2004), and tagging studies have indicated mixing of adult sea bass within and between the North Sea, English Channel, Celtic Sea and Irish Sea (Pawson et al., 1987; Pawson et al., 2007b). As a consequence, there is a lack of genetic structuring/differentiation between spawning grounds and between adults and juveniles (Castilho & McAndrew, 1998; Naciri et al., 1999; Frisch et al., 2006)

It is, therefore, difficult to identify distinct biological stocks throughout the sea bass population in North-west Europe using genetic or tagging data, and assessments of the dynamics of sea bass populations around the coasts of England and Wales show common features regarding year-class strength over large parts of its range. This suggests that the abundance and survival of juvenile sea bass may be controlled by large-scale environmental patterns.

Figure 3: The main migration routes of adult bass within and between the sub-populations (hatched), viz: North Sea, English Channel, English and Welsh west coast, Irish waters and Bay of Biscay (after Pawson et al., 2007b).

5 .2 Stock status

5.2.1 Assessment unit

The assessment areas used by ICES (2009) are based on a proposal by Pawson et al. (2007b) for sea

FN 82061 v4 Page 22 areas within which fishery and biological data could be used in assessments and for which management advice may be given, based on a consideration of both the current patterns of seasonal movements of sea bass in the exploited populations (i.e., >36 cm), as indicated by tag recaptures, and the characteristics of the seasonal fisheries taking them (Figure 3). Both juvenile and adult bass make extensive movements along the west coasts of England and Wales, and bass fisheries in the Bristol Channel are currently included in the same management unit as fisheries exploiting bass populations in the Irish Sea and eastern Celtic Sea (ICES Divisions VIIa, f & g) and the northern part of the western English Channel (VIIe) (but note no interactions with bass in Irish waters)..

5.2.2 Assessment of stock

Catch and fishing effort data Prior to implementation of the Buyers and Sellers regulation in 2005 (see section 7.3.2.1 ), the official statistics grossly underestimated the quantities of bass landed in England and Wales (Pawson et al., 2007a). A considerable proportion of the UK bass catch taken by commercial small-boat fisheries and by the recreational sector is sold directly to restaurants or small merchants, and the official statistics may record as little as 20% of actual landings. The best estimates of annual catch and effort have been obtained by integrating official statistics, derived from landings declarations and local market sales at the 60-70 major ports, with estimates of total landings by inshore fishing vessels, including charter and casual angling boats, obtained from a voluntary logbook scheme administered by Cefas for the England and Wales <10 m fleet since 1984 (Pickett, 1990; Pickett et al., 1995). This scheme provides daily catch records from a sample of 34–65 vessels in the fisheries that take bass (though only two in the Bristol Channel), which are raised to numbers of active vessels derived from an annual regional census of the number of UK vessels involved in fishing for bass, to provide estimates of total landings, stratified by gear, boat type and ICES division.

Because up to three types of gear may be used by each boat on one day, it is not possible to derive accurate gear-specific effort, and the most reliable measure of effort for the UK <10 m fleet is the boat- day, specifically when bass is a target species (Pickett, 1990). Effort data (days on the ground) for UK >10 m vessels landing bass into England and Wales are obtained from the Defra Fisheries Activity Database.

Biological data Analytical assessment methods usually rely on data on the length and/or age distributions of fish in the landed catch. Adequate biological samples of bass for this purpose have been obtained since 1985 through a biological sampling programme run by Cefas in conjunction with the logbook scheme, in which length data are collected either from the whole landing from small vessels, often at fish merchants, or from markets by size category, against targets set by gear group (i.e. demersal trawls, gillnets, lines, and pelagic trawls). Bass are easily aged using scales (Kelley, 1988), and length- stratified “all gears” scale samples of at least 150 fish are used to provide corresponding half-yearly age-length keys for each stock area. Market sampling and opportunistic sampling of bass catches have been utilized to elucidate biological parameters such as length-weight ratios, feeding patterns, and fat, maturity and condition cycles (Pawson and Pickett, 1996).

Biological data are not reported to be routinely gathered from the landing ports in the Unit of Certification area for this fishery.

Year class strength A robust time-series of data on year-class strength of pre-recruit bass has been provided by a trawl survey in the Solent nursery areas (central English Channel), where a standard grid of 35 stations has been fished over a 4-day period at the same part of the tidal cycle (falling Springs) in May and September each year since 1984 (Pickett et al., 2002). Numbers of each year class caught at ages 2,

FN 82061 v4 Page 23 3, and 4 in up to 6 successive surveys are used to derive abundance indices (Pawson, 1992), which have given a reliable advanced warning of good or poor recruitment to the bass spawning stock and fishery in the English Channel, and have been shown to correlate well with recruitment patterns to the fishery on the south and west coasts of England and Wales, which only extends to the 2001 year class (Pawson et al., 2007b). The series was most recently updated using data from September 2009 (Figure 4), and indicates that recruitment has been around average since the last strong 1997 year class.

Figure 4: Sea bass year class strength indices based on numbers of 2-4 year-olds caught during Solent pre-recruit trawl surveys.

Analytical assessments The first analytical examination of the UK bass fishery was a yield per recruit (Y/R) analysis carried out using catch-at-age data in three métiers (gear groups, within which the species composition in the catch is relatively consistent) - trawls, nets and lines (including recreational rod-and-line) - in the sea bass fishery in ICES Division VIId (a good indicator of general trends in the UK fishery) (Pawson et al., 2005). The results showed that increasing length at first capture above 36 cm (the current MLS) would produce small gains in Y/R up to about 46 cm, above which potential yields are increased only if the level of fishing mortality (F) is also increased. These analyses indicated that the technical measures introduced in 1990 (see section 7) had achieved the management objective, to move the exploitation pattern towards higher ages, by 1995, with peak exploitation at age 6. This provided increased protection of juvenile bass and helped safeguard the stock fished close inshore by small boats.

In 2003, the ICES Bass Study Group used the SURBA program with data on UK and French bass catch-at-age and fishing effort by métier groups (trawls, nets and lines) for four stock areas (IVb, c; VIId; VIIe, h; VIIa, f, g) for which sufficient biological sampling information was available over the period 1985–2002 (ICES, 2004). The assessments utilized a separable model with 12 datasets (three

FN 82061 v4 Page 24 métiers for each of four stocks) to provide independent assessments of the status of each stock, indicating trends in spawning-stock biomass (SSB) within stocks, and similar recruitment patterns between stocks. Estimates of fishing mortality using SURBA were considered to be less informative, largely because of a lack of independence between the selectivities of the fishery and that of the indices of catch per unit of effort (CPUE) used. No biological reference points were proposed at this time.

No update on these assessments has been carried out using international data, but a more statistically- based assessment of the development of the bass population was required by ICES in order to be able to give advice on stock trends and sustainability, particularly in terms of spawning potential and recruitment in relation to exploitation rates and climate change. To this end, a multi-métier, fully statistical, separable catch numbers-at-age model was developed, based on the stage 1 stock synthesis framework of Methot (1990), using UK fishing effort and catch numbers-at-age data for three métiers (i.e. trawls, nets, and lines) in four areas (ICES Divisions IVb, c; VIId; VIIe; VIIa, f, g;) over the period 1985-2004 (ICES, 2006; method fully described in Pawson et al. 2007a).

Although landings by UK vessels in the winter offshore fishery in Sub-area VII were well sampled between 1999 and 2004, age and length data are not available for the majority of landings (by French vessels) from this fishery. Consequently, data for the offshore fishery were not included in the assessments. There is little information on bass discards, but they were thought to be either insignificant (in gill nets) or to survive on being returned to the water (from lines). Sex ratio, maturity, and length-weight conversion factors are derived from biological sampling carried out between 1982 and 1990 (Pawson and Pickett, 1996).

Since the model used assumes a linear relationship between fishing mortality (F) and fishing effort exerted by the métiers that exploit a particular stock, estimated trends in F differ between the stocks in line with fluctuations in the effort of the different métiers. Model estimates for the stock unit that includes the Bristol Channel (Divisions VIIa,f,g) indicate levels of F around 0.2 for most of the period prior to 1990, an increase to 0.3-0.4 in the 1990s, then lower levels of around 0.2 since 2002. The gear selectivity patterns derived from the model confirm the results of Pawson et al. (2005).

The model indicates that the abundance of adult bass (spawning stock biomass - SSB) in populations on the west coasts of England and Wales remained stable between 1985 and 1991, and then generally increased so that it has approximately doubled by 2004 (absolute abundance values are not reliable, see below). This substantial increase in SSB was associated with the recruitment of the very strong 1989 year class (apparent in all stock areas), and a generally increasing level of recruitment from the low level observed in 1995 onwards. This increase in recruitment and abundance of adult bass was mirrored by annual landings of sea bass from English and Welsh inshore fisheries in Divisions VIIa,f,g, (Table 2) which increased from around 200t between 1983 and 1992 to approximately 600t between 2000 and 2004 (Pawson et al., 2007a).

The consistency of the model outputs for the different gears within each area suggest that data for the UK bass fishery have remained robust, possibly because there is no tangible gain to the fishermen in misreporting; the logbook scheme is voluntary, and there are (to date) no quotas to be observed or "track records" to be established. The patterns in F and recruitment derived from this model are consistent with the evidence provided by the Cefas logbook scheme and the fishery-independent pre- recruit bass trawl survey in the Solent (Division VIId), which is not used in the model. There are, however, inevitable problems with the scaling of F and thus biomass estimates. Whilst the omission of data for the (mainly French) pelagic trawl fishery in VIIe may have limited implications for quantification of the dynamics of bass stocks around the coasts of England and Wales (Pawson et al., 2007b), the recreational rod-and-line fishery is likely to be a substantial contributor to bass mortality, especially on the younger, smaller fish. This would affect estimates of recruitment to the commercial fishery, but these are consistent between areas over the period 1984–2002 and that for VIId closely

FN 82061 v4 Page 25 matches the fishery-independent abundance indices for pre-recruit bass provided by the Solent survey. Thus, whilst the model reflects reasonably the dynamics of the inshore bass stock both in stock numbers, SSB and in F, it is not possible to estimate the absolute size of the stock.

Given this difficulty in providing quantitative estimates of sea bass population dynamics, these assessments are unsuitable for short-term forecasts and setting TACs. However, the output can still be used to give precautionary management advice in relation to stock status and sustainability, and selectivity patterns in the UK fishery have already been used in simulations of increases in the size at which bass are first exploited (minimum landing size, MLS) to indicate the relative magnitude of changes in yield to the various métiers and in the age structure of the underlying bass population (M. Smith, pers comm.)

From a management viewpoint, Pawson et al.’s (2007a) results suggested that bass stocks in ICES Divisions a,f,g are being exploited sustainably, at a moderate level of F and with an exploitation pattern that gives a near maximum yield per recruit, and that this has led to an increase in exploitable biomass since the early 1990s. That levels of F have not increased in line with recruitment suggests, possibly, that the package of management measures introduced in 1990 has been effective in directing fishing activity away from the vulnerable juveniles.

The most recent update of the assessment of bass in English and Welsh coastal waters includes data up to 2006 (Kupschus et al., 2008), and compares the effects of using official landings and effort data and the ‘best estimate’ landings and effort data that is usually regarded as being a more realistic reflection of the fishery (derived from the Cefas voluntary logbook scheme, see above). The results from these updated assessments are in close agreement with the assessments carried out in 2006 (Pawson et al., 2007a): stocks levels are considered to be at, or close to, series maxima and trends in F are fairly level, with some peaks, throughout the time series. Recruitment was above-average during the mid to late 1990s, and this has resulted high landings and stock levels. However, there is no assessment available to update our knowledge of bass stock trends beyond 2006.

Subsequent to the assessment team’s site visit, the Swansea Yacht and Sub Aqua Club (SYSAC) has provided quantitative information on bass catches in 2005-2009 from the logs of three boats that are used for recreational fishing (including charter angling) off the South Gower coast, Table 3.

Table 3: Bass catch statistics for three recreational angling boats fishing off South Wales, 2005- 2009 (source SYSAC).

Year Total bass caught % Bass >5lbs Angler days Bass caught per angler day 2005 859 14.0 150 5.7 2006 1003 7.4 154 6.5 2007 747 3.8 176 4.2 2008 511 2.8 140 3.6 2009 529 1.9 127 4.1

These statistics suggest that both the catch rate and average size of bass caught off the Gower coast declined over the period 2004-2009, which is supported by observations of individual anglers of a considerable decline in both the size and numbers of bass caught since the mid-1990s (when catches were boosted by the strong 1989 year class, and representative of a relatively unfished stock). Many members of SYSAC report that recent bass catches comprise mainly small (<1 kg) fish, though it is unclear whether this is the consequence of exploitation or reflects recruitment patterns.

FN 82061 v4 Page 26 5.2.3 Biological Reference points

The common patterns in the recruitment time-series for bass “stocks” in the North Sea, English Channel, and along the west coast of England and Wales indicate that stocks of bass around England and Wales are linked biologically (see Pickett et al., 2004) and/or that recruitment is controlled by large-scale environmental patterns. It is known that warm or cold summers and winters can have a considerable influence on the survival of 0-group bass through their first year (Kelley, 1986), and that strong year classes are associated with higher temperatures (Pawson, 1992) rather than SSB. There is, therefore, no stock-recruit relationship for bass (Pawson et al., 2007a), nor are there reliable quantitative estimates of stock biomass, which means that it has not been possible to set absolute or even relative reference points based on stock-recruit considerations. There is, however, no sign of recruitment-overfishing, and management decisions have been taken based on considerations of Y/R and MSY in relation to exploitations patterns (essentially F-at-age, based on a good knowledge of biological parameters and local fishing patterns).

5.2.4 Scientific background to management advice for sea bass

Research on the sea bass and its fisheries started in the 1970s, when recreational anglers in particular began to be concerned for the future of the bass stocks around the coasts of England, Wales and Ireland. What little was known of its biology was, nevertheless, sufficient to indicate that protection of juveniles was bound to assist conservation of bass (Holden and Williams, 1974). Though ICES established a study group in 2001 to respond to the European Commission’s request for information on sea bass fisheries, stock identity, assessment data and conservation requirements in European waters (ICES, 2002), there was no assessment of the size of the bass population - even in relative terms - and of its productivity and mortality rates until 2003, and thus any restraint on exploitation (if this was necessary) could not be justified on the basis of an analytical assessment.

In the UK, however, requests by recreational anglers in the early 1970s for the government to provide greater protection for bass (one of their key quarry species) from commercial fishing, led to scientists recommending an increase in the MLS above the then current 26 cm (Holden and Williams, 1974). Because very little was known about the fisheries in which bass were caught, and the nature of interactions with fisheries for other species, it was not possible to predict the effect such a measure would have on the commercial fishery, on overall yields, or on the bass stocks themselves. As a consequence, a research programme was initiated by Cefas in 1981, to provide an understanding of the relationship between bass and its exploiters. Tagging studies were conducted with commercial fishermen, and information about the fishery (including gill-net retention information) and biological data were obtained to complement data already accruing from similar studies by Kelley (1979) and other anglers. A summary of the results of this work were presented in Pawson and Pickett (1987), which served as an aide memoir for forthcoming discussions and consultations on management measures.

In the early to mid 1980s, the exploitation pattern on sea bass in the inshore fisheries around English and Welsh coasts had been shifting towards younger ages, and Y/R analyses showed strong evidence of growth-overfishing in many areas, owing to local fisheries targeting 3-5 year-old sea bass in and around harbours and estuaries (Pawson and Pickett, 1987). There was, however, no evidence of recruitment failure attributable to excessive depletion of the spawning stock, and the scientific advice was to direct the fishery away from bass under 40 cm, i.e. to improve the exploitation pattern. Although a MLS corresponding to the mean size at first maturity in female sea bass (around 42 cm; Pawson and Pickett, 1996) would help to protect immature fish and preserve the stock's breeding potential, the primary aim was to prevent too many small fish being caught, so that yields to the fishery were not further depressed by inadequate growth in the population as a whole. Furthermore, there was a very strong market for "plate sized" sea bass in the mid-1980s (Pickett et al., 1995), and it

FN 82061 v4 Page 27 was concluded that a national MLS of 36 cm would satisfy the management objective of reducing growth-overfishing, whilst allowing some important small-boat fisheries to remain viable.

Bearing in mind the vulnerability to capture of juvenile sea bass, additional measures were needed to support a higher MLS. Conventionally, a minimum mesh size that effectively complements the MLS would help fishermen minimise the number of undersized fish they had to discard from their catch. Catch data from gill nets (which account for about one-third of the commercial sea bass catch in the UK) showed that they are highly selective for sea bass (Reis and Pawson, 1992), and it was proposed that a minimum mesh size of 90 mm (stretched mesh, measured knot to opposite knot) be introduced for all enmeshing gears, chiefly because of the difficulty in identifying a bass gill net fishery.

Consultation revealed several fisheries that would be less viable with a 90 mm minimum mesh size, in particular those for the 'small pelagics' - sprat, Sprattus sprattus, herring, Clupea harengus, mackerel and pilchard. The outcome was that a banned range of mesh sizes (65 - 89 mm) was implemented in enmeshing nets used in England and Wales, which would allow these fisheries for continue. The principle of a banned range (70-90 mm) to protect juvenile sea bass was retained in the first controls on mesh sizes for enmeshing nets introduced, for fixed nets only, at European Community level (Annex VI of Council Regulation 850/1998).

It was concluded at the time that new mesh size regulations for trawl nets were unlikely to be introduced specifically for sea bass fishing, because trawl mesh sizes tend to be influenced by the need to comply with international rather than national requirements, there were complex multi- species considerations (as for cod), and because inshore trawlers tend to use short tows - usually less than 1 h – from which discarded sea bass may survive quite well (Pawson et al., 1987).

The most radical part of the bass management measures was a restriction on fishing activities that were likely to take sea bass in areas where most fish in the local population were below 36 cm. These came to be known as the bass "nursery areas", in which juvenile fish of 3-5 years old are found in sheltered or enclosed inshore areas (i.e. estuaries, inlets and harbours) for most of the year, and where tagging had shown exploitation rates as high as 50% (Pawson et al., 1987). Prior to the period of “climate warming” in the winters of 1988 - 1990 (Pawson, 1992), the susceptibility of 0-group sea bass to low temperatures in winter (Lancaster, 1991) meant that potential nursery habitats north of the Dee Estuary on the west coast were unlikely to contain sufficient small sea bass in most years to merit protective measures in addition to MLS and mesh size controls. The main exceptions are where small sea bass are attracted to warm water discharged from coastal power stations, such as at Heysham, in Morecambe Bay, Lancashire (Turnpenny, 1988).

It was not possible to analytically assess the potential benefits that regulating fishing on local juvenile bass populations would have for yields in the fishery because of (i) the difficulty in determining the actual exploitation rates on fish under the MLS - and (ii) the large year-to-year variations in abundance and distribution of juvenile and adult bass in and around nursery areas. A more pragmatic approach to deciding which areas to designate as bass nurseries, and whether to allow fisheries for other species to continue in these areas, was based upon the vulnerability to capture of small bass in those areas known to harbour them, the ease of delineating specific locations and the time of year in which the bass there were particularly vulnerable to fishing, and the degree to which fishing restrictions could be enforced, judged against the social and economic significance of local fisheries for bass and other species.

A package of technical measures was introduced in England and Wales in 1990, which made it illegal to land bass <36 cm long, banned mesh sizes (65–90 mm) at which juvenile bass were most vulnerable to capture by enmeshing gears, and prohibited fishing for bass from boats in 34 inshore designated nursery areas in England and Wales. The restriction on fishing in nursery areas makes management of the fishery more even-handed, because MLS and mesh size restrictions have a much

FN 82061 v4 Page 28 greater impact on commercial fishermen than they do on recreational anglers.

The success of these management measures has been evaluated in a number of studies on exploitation patterns (Pawson et al., 2005), impact of nursery areas (Pickett et al., 2004) and stock dynamics (Pawson et al., 2007a), whilst options for increasing the MLS and restricting bass catches (by bag limits and catch-and-release) in inshore areas to promote recreational angling (BASS, 2003; Smith pers. comm.) have been examined and reported on by Cefas on behalf of the English Department of Environment, Fisheries and Rural Affairs.

5 .3 Discarding of bass

Concerns about discarding of undersized bass by trawlers were raised by stakeholder during the site visit. These concerns are documented in sections 12 and 19 of this report. The client fleet have stated that they fish on the offshore sandbanks where the catch is “clean”, being principally of large bass with few undersized bass or other species in the catch.

This issue has been considered very carefully by the assessment team.

There is no independent routine monitoring of discarding of bass from the trawl fleet in the Bristol Channel. The only independent sources of information about bass discarding available to the assessment team are from the work on gear selectivity carried out in partnership with the client fleet (Catchpole, 2009), and also modelling of the likely effects of changes to the bass MLS on rates of discarding from the trawl fishery (Walmsley & Pawson, unpubl).

The assessment team note that the principal harvest control rules in place for the bass fishery are based upon a combination of MLS, nursery areas, and technical measures controlling the use of gill nets which in combination have the effect of minimise the capture of juvenile bass in coastal waters. These measures were reviewed in detail by Picket et al (1995). Significantly, that report paid little attention to inshore trawling for bass.

Catchpole (2009) reported that the proportion of undersized bass was 30% of the catch in typical trawls in the Bristol Channel. Walmlsley & Pawson (unpubl) note that it is likely that bass are caught in all inshore trawl fisheries around the UK and that the overall abundance in the catch, and the proportion of undersized bass, will vary in accordance with their local abundance.

The conclusion drawn by the team is that, irrespective of the actual quantity of undersized bass that are discarded by trawlers in the Bristol Channel, there is a shortcoming in the harvest control rules that apply to the bass trawl fishery. These rules currently allow the use of trawls that will capture undersized bass. By contrast, the harvest control rules in place for the gill net fishery are based on the use of a mesh size that is compatible with the bass MLS.

FN 82061 v4 Page 29 6 ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

6 .1 Overview The Bristol Channel supports a wide range of habitats that range from large estuaries (the Severn and the Three Rivers) with sedimentary shores to open sea and rocky coastlines. Together these habitats create a complex ecosystem supporting a wide range of wildlife. At different stages in their life history, bass are found in the estuaries, shallow coastal waters and open seas of the Bristol Channel. A comprehensive review of the habitats and wildlife in this area is set out in the Joint Nature Conservation Committee Coastal Directories covering Regions 11 and 12 (Barne et al, 1995; 1996).

This section of the report considers how the Bristol Channel Bass Trawl Fishery may affect the different parts of the ecosystem in the area that are considered by the MSC assessment of the fishery under Principle 2.

6 .2 Retained non-target species

6.2.1 Status According to data obtained in a Fisheries Science Partnership (FSP, a Defra-funded collaborative programme of scientific research between the UK fishing industry and scientists) square-mesh panel investigation in 2009 (see 6.2.3 for details), some 25 commercial species were caught, in similar compositions, in experimental and control trawls in this fishery. Excluding bass, the species that made up most of the landed component by weight were lesser spotted dogfish (Scyliorhynus canicula, 42%), plaice (Pleuronectes platessa, 23%), small-eyed ray (Raja microocellata, 10%) and thornback ray (Raja clavata, 6%). The status of each species is considered here.

There has been no assessment made of the status of lesser spotted dogfish, but a case study (Anon, 2003) concluded from the results of tagging studies and some limited information on spatial differences in parasites and metal concentrations that they form localised populations (e.g. on the level of an ICES division). Commercial catch and research vessel survey data indicate that S. canicula is widespread and abundant in the Bristol Channel (VIIf), and this may be due to the tradition of dumping most of the catch alive, plus the fact that other discarded fish might be providing additional food sources to the dogfish.

Based on the most recent estimates of SSB (in 2009), ICES classifies the plaice stock in Divisions VIIf,g as being at risk of reduced reproductive capacity. SSB has declined rapidly since 1990 and has been below or around Blim since 2002, and some very weak year classes have occurred since the late 1990s. Fishing mortality has fluctuated around an average level (0.60) for the entire time-series, but has declined since 2004. Though there are no internationally agreed management objectives for this stock, ICES advises that a 50% reduction in F is needed to increase SSB to around Bpa in 2011 (ICES Advice 2009, Book 5: www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2009).

There are no formal stock assessments for any ray species in the Celtic Sea ecoregion with which estimates of stock status against biological reference points could be made. However, ICES (2008) provides a qualitative summary of the general status of the main ray species in the Bristol Channel (VIIf), where both small-eyed ray and thornback ray are considered to be stable or increasing, based on time-series of survey catch rates in the main area of the stocks’ distribution.

6.2.2 Management strategy The MSC standard requires that “There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained

FN 82061 v4 Page 30 species.”

There is no evidence of a management strategy for retained species, apart from species (e.g. plaice) the exploitation of which is managed by catch quotas.

6.2.3 Information and Monitoring In addition to landings statistics obtained from Defra on retained species in this fishery, data are available from sampling recently carried out as part of an FSP investigation of the benefits of incorporating a square-mesh section in bass trawls. In July and August 2009, 45 valid hauls of experimental and control trawls were made during two five-day trips on board the MFV Cerulean, following the fishery’s usual practices and in areas normally fished: either on generic inshore trawling grounds off the North coast of Devon and Cornwall or on the ridges of sand banks further north in the Bristol Channel which are fished specifically for bass.

In the trials, a test trawl with the square-mesh section and an un-modified control trawl were deployed every day, the square-mesh section being swapped between the two trawls after each day. The usual commercial practice was followed of conducting no more than one haul at each location on the same day, because it is believed that bass move away from an area when it is trawled. The method, therefore, assumed that the same assemblage of fish would be encountered by the control and experimental trawls during tows in similar locations during the two five-day trips.

Cefas scientists measured the lengths of all fish species caught in each haul or of sub-samples thereof, and used length-weight conversion parameters relevant to ICES Sub-area VII to estimate catch weights and proportions of retained and discarded species.

6 .3 Discarded non-target species

This section considers discards of non-target species from the fishery. Discards of the target species are considered in section 5 .3 .

6.3.1 Status The only data available for discards in this fishery were obtained during the FSP square-mesh study in July and August 2009. In the 45 valid hauls from which fish samples were taken, 43 species were caught in addition to bass, of which 24 were considered commercial species and 19 non-commercial. The catch compositions in the control trawl were similar to those of the experimental trawl.

Excluding undersized bass, the species that made up most of the discarded component by weight from both trawls were starry smooth hounds (Mustelus asterias, 30%), lesser spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula) (35%, though some are landed for pot bait), greater spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus stellaris, 9%), plaice (5%), dab (Limanda limanda, 5%) and mackerel (Scomber scombrus, 3%). In general, there were fewer discards from catches taken by the experimental trawl with the square-mesh section of those species which are discarded because they are below marketable size or legal landing size or they are small non-commercial species. For example, when using the experimental trawl relative to the control trawl, discards of dab were reduced by 69%, plaice 27%, lemon sole (Microstomus kitt) 14%, mackerel 59% and common dragonet (Callionymus lyra, 76%.

6.3.2 Management strategy There is no overt strategy for managing the impact of the Unit of Certification (UoC) on by-catch species, though minimum landing sizes and mesh size controls (80 mm stretched mesh) will help to protect juveniles and small-bodied species to some extent. The results of the FSP investigation conducted with one UoC vessel in 2009 showed that the proportion of bass discarded was lower when using an experimental trawl with the 90 mm square-mesh section than with the control trawl,

FN 82061 v4 Page 31 and resulted in fewer discards of those species that are discarded because they are below marketable size or legal landing size or they are small non-commercial species. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that comparable 90 mm square-mesh net modifications are being fished routinely by any vessel in the UoC.

6.3.3 Information and Monitoring The only available data on discards from this fishery are from sampling recently carried out as part of the FSP investigation of the benefits of incorporating a square-mesh section in bass trawls conducted in July and August 2009 (see 6.2.3 for details).

6 .4 Endangered, Threatened & Protected Species

The MSC define Endangered Threatened & Protected (ETP) species as “those that are recognised by national legislation and/or binding international agreements (e.g. CITES) to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party.”

Several species are found in the unit of certification that are statutorily protected.

It is a criminal offence to kill or injure certain wildlife species in the UK. These species include basking sharks, all whales and dolphins (cetaceans), all marine turtles and angel sharks. It is also an offence to disturb any basking sharks or cetaceans. No concerns about interactions with any of these protected species were raised with the assessment team during the site visit.

The Countryside Council for Wales has raised some concerns about the potential effect of trawl fisheries in the Bristol Channel on some other marine fish and elasmobranch species. These are species that are listed as Biodiversity Action Plan priority species at the UK and Welsh level. They include the sandy ray (Leucoraja circularis) the blonde ray (Raja brachyura) and the thornback ray (Raja clavata). Further concerns were raised about Angel shark (Squatina squatina), plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), monkfish (Lophius piscatorius), sole (Solea solea) and spurdog (Squalus acanthias).

The assessment team has examined the UK Biodiversity Action Plan website (UK BAP, 2010) to fully understand the conservation status and management response for each of these species. For the sandy ray, angel shark, plaice, sole, monkfish and spiny dogfish, the UK BAP management action requires “UK and EU to implement effective fisheries management, fully incorporating scientific advice from ICES”.(UK BAP, 2010). Other supplementary actions are listed for each species, most of which aim to improve understanding of the species and its survival after encounters with fishing gear. Biodiversity targets are not listed on the UK site for thornback rays and blonde rays – these are listed on the Welsh BAP Priority list and targets for them are still being developed.

The level of statutory protection afforded to BAP-listed species in the UK is limit to a requirement that statutory bodies should “have regard […] to the purpose of conserving biodiversity” under s40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

The ICES advice for all of the above species except for the spurdog and angel shark is that it is appropriate to fish for these species within constraints imposed by a TAC and other conservation measures. The fishery under assessment operates within these constraints.

The EC has set out an action plan for the conservation and management of sharks (EC, 2009). Under this action plan, the EC has banned any landings of angel shark, and has set a zero TAC for spurdog. The species has been listed on the IUCN red list of endangered species, and it has been proposed for listing on Appendix II of the Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)

FN 82061 v4 Page 32 (IUCN, 2010).

The available information on the catch of non-target species in the Bristol Channel Bass Trawl Fishery is summarised in sections 6 .2 and 6 .3 of this report. The BAP listed species caught and retained as part of routine fishing operations were plaice and thornback rays.

6 .5 Habitats

The unit of certification includes one of the main estuarine habitats in the UK, comprising the inner Bristol Channel, the Severn Estuary and its tributary rivers, and the smaller estuaries along the south Wales and south-west peninsula coasts. The seabed of the area is composed predominantly of sandy and muddy substrata (Figure 5). Most of the fishing for bass is carried out on the mobile sandy substrata in the Bristol Channel, a habitat type which is unlikely to suffer serious or irreversible harm from trawling activity (Jennings & Kaiser, 1998), and which covers over 733,000 hectares of the UK seabed (JNCC, 2010).

Figure 5: Seabed habitats in the unit of certification area (from Barne et al, 1996)

Some habitats in the unit of certification have been recognised for their nature conservation value at the national and European level. They are protected by a range of nature conservation designations (see Figure 6). The marine areas that are protected included three Special Areas of Conservation and also two “Marine Conservation Zones” (MCZs) at Lundy and Skomer. Both the latter were formerly designated as Marine Nature Reserves, a designation that has been superceded by the provisions allowing the creation of MCZs under the Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009. The protection of the Lundy MCZ is further bolstered by fisheries byelaws made by the Devon SFC to effectively create a “No Take Zone” which prohibits trawling there (although this is not an area where the UoC fleet would routinely fish for bass) (Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, 2010).

FN 82061 v4 Page 33 Figure 6: Special Areas of Conservation (blue) and Special Protection Areas (purple) within and adjacent to the unit of certification area (GIS data from JNCC website).

The network of protected habitats within the unit of certification are a management response to the UK domestic strategy for conserving marine wildlife as well as the European strategy for conserving marine and terrestrial wildlife.

The European strategy for conserving marine and terrestrial wildlife is set out in the objectives of two Directives: the “Birds Directive” (made in 1979 and recently codified in 2009 (Directive 147/2009/EC)), and the “Habitats Directive” (Directive 92/43/EC). These two Directives provide objective criteria for designating a Europe-wide network of protected sites, collectively termed “Natura 2000”, which are a core part of the EC’s commitment to delivering the objectives of the 1979 Berne Convention and the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. The Natura 2000 network comprises two types of protected sites: Special Protection Areas (SPAs), which aim to protect birds and the habitats that support them; and Special Area of Conservation (SACs), which protect terrestrial and marine habitats and species.

In England and Wales, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 has led to new Government strategies for marine wildlife conservation. In England, this strategy is being progressed through the Marine Conservation Zone Project, within which the “Finding Sanctuary” project is setting out the framework for marine wildlife conservation in the south west (Figure 7). The Welsh Assembly Government has launched its own strategy for establishing MCZs in Welsh waters (Welsh Assembly Government, 2009). The purpose of these initiatives is to deliver a UK network of ecologically coherent and well-managed marine protected areas by 2012, with the aim that the UK meets its commitments to the Convention on Biological Diversity and contributes to achieving Good Environmental Status across Europe’s seas by 2020 under the EC Marine Strategy Framework

FN 82061 v4 Page 34 Directive (JNCC, 2010a)

Figure 7: The area covered by the “Finding Sanctuary”project, which is establishing the strategic framework for identifying statutory MCZs in part of the UoC area (Source: Finding Sanctuary, 2010)

The existing range of protected sites within the UoC area gives rise to management requirements which can, where necessary, constrain fishing activity. The restrictions around Lundy Island demonstrate how measures to protect marine habitats and species may constrain or prohibit fishing activities. These requirements are not restricted to designates sites. The Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act 1992 requires all fisheries managers to have regard to the effect of their decisions on marine wildlife; and the Environment Act 1995 enables fishery managers to use their powers to regulate fishing activity in response to “marine environmental matters”. These duties were bolstered by a requirement to conserve biodiversity that is set out in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and will be further strengthened by institutional reforms in 2011 which will result in fisheries and marine wildlife conservation duties being brought together in “Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Agencies” that will manage inshore fisheries throughout England from 1st April 2011.

The status of the habitats within all protected areas in the UK is monitored by the statutory nature conservation agencies under the “Common Standards Monitoring” programme, which reports on status every six years (JNCC, 2010b). Results of monitoring in 2006 show that at a national level the subtidal sandbank habitats where the UoC fishery is prosecuted are well above the average for being in favourable condition (JNCC, 2010c).

The sensitivity and vulnerability of key marine habitats in the UK were examined in detail in the late 1990s by the “Marine SACs Project”. This project was funded by the EU and managed by the nature conservation agencies. Detailed reports were produced, including one that examined the effects of fishing on Special Areas of Conservation (Gubbay & Knapman, 1999); and another examining the dynamics and sensitivity of subtidal sandbanks (Elliott et al, 1998).

6 .6 Ecosystem impacts

Although the sea bass is an important predator in inshore nursery areas, its relatively low abundance (compared to cod or mackerel, for example) suggests that it is unlikely to exert significant pressure

FN 82061 v4 Page 35 on lower trophic levels in the context of the wider Celtic Sea. Moreover, the bass population on the west coast of the UK has fluctuated considerably over at least the last 40 years (evidence on relative abundance, and population size/age structure is available since the 1970s (Pawson et al., 1987; Pickett and Pawson, 1994; Pawson et al., 2007a), in part due to increased recruitment in the 1990s, and in response to increased exploitation. As a consequence, the respective impact of expanding sea bass populations, and the modifying effect of their removal by fishing pressure on this overall change, is not known. Given this scenario, the sea bass fishery may or may not be influencing a possibly changing ecology which is essentially outside the influence of the fishery.

FN 82061 v4 Page 36 7 FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

7 .1 Overview Fishing in the unit of certification area is managed by a range of organisations and legislation. Inshore areas are managed through domestic (UK) legislation, while the areas further offshore are regulated through EC legislation. Fisheries legislation is enforced by locally-based statutory bodies that are able to implement EC, national and local legislation. The management regime is accessible to stakeholder input through a variety of mechanisms.

7 .2 Administrative and customary framework

Fisheries in the Bristol Channel are managed by the European Union, UK national Government, Welsh Assembly Government, Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee and the Environment Agency. Each of these organisations has a clear and well defined statutory role. They are briefly summarised in this section.

7.2.1 European Union The European Union has overall responsibility for fisheries management throughout its Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends to 200nm from Member States’ coastlines, or to median lines. Fisheries Regulations are made either by the European Commission or the Council of Ministers, and establish statutory measures that apply throughout the EU and which create binding requirements for all EU Member States.

7.2.2 Marine Management Organisation The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is a new executive non-departmental public body established and given powers under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. It came into operation on 1st April 2010. The MMO has incorporated the work of the Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) and acquired several important new roles, principally marine-related powers and specific functions previously associated with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Transport.

MMO officers are based at Plymouth, Brixham and Newlyn. They carry out shore-based patrols along the north Devon coast, to inspect landings, fishing gear, and ensure compliance with the Registered Buyers & Sellers legislation (see section 7.3.2.1 ).

7.2.3 Welsh Assembly Government The Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) is the devolved Government for Wales. Since 1st April 2010, WAG has been responsible for the management of fisheries in Welsh waters up to 12 nautical miles offshore. WAG Fishery Officers are based at Milford Haven and Swansea and carry out shore patrols and enforcement activity at sea in the Bristol Channel.

WAG has embraced all of the fisheries byelaws that were previously created by the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee prior to 1st April 2010. Relevant byelaws, as well as the legislation transferring regulatory powers to WAG, are summarised in Table 4. The extent of the “Welsh Zone” is illustrated in Figure 8.

FN 82061 v4 Page 37 Figure 8: The “Welsh zone” established in 2010 by The Welsh Zone (Boundaries and Transfer of Functions) Order 2010. The Welsh Assembly Government has the competence to manage fisheries within this zone.

7.2.4 Sea Fisheries Committees There are two Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) in the UoC area: Devon SFC and Cornwall SFC. The SFCs are statutory inshore fishery management bodies that enforce their own byelaws as well as some UK and EC fisheries regulations up to 6 nautical miles offshore. In addition to implementing fisheries legislation, SFCs also play a leading role in the implementation of nature conservation legislation in the marine environment.

SFCs were established in the late 19th century under the Sea Fisheries (Regulation) Act 1888, which was later consolidated and updated by the Sea Fisheries (Regulation) Act 1966. They are regionally based organisations that are funded by a levy on their constituent County and Borough Councils. SFC byelaws and policy are determined by an executive Committee made up of local authority councillors and representatives of the local fishing industry, plus at least one “environmental member”. This arrangement provides democratic accountability, environmental precaution and an avenue for fisheries co-management (and has been praised as a “unique institutional form of inshore fisheries management” (Symes & Phillipson, 1998)).

FN 82061 v4 Page 38 Each SFC is staffed by full time uniformed and warranted Officers. These Officers are accountable to their Committee. In fisheries matters they have the power to stop and inspect vessels, to seize illegal fishing gear and catches, and to bring charges for breaches of byelaws and certain UK and EC legislation.

At the time of the site visit there were 12 SFCs in England and Wales. On 1st April 2010, the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee and the Welsh District of the North Western and North Wales SFC were merged with the fisheries department of the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG). There are now 11 SFCs in England.

On 1st April 2011 the SFCs are due to be transformed into “Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Agencies” (IFCAs). These changes are principally institutional; the enforcement staff, byelaws and other fisheries regulations in force have been transferred to WAG in Wales in 2010, and in England they will be transferred to the new IFCAs in 2011.

7.2.4.1 Devon Sea Fisheries Committee The Devon Sea Fisheries Committee (DSFC) has responsibility for regulating fishing for sea fish and shellfish up to 6 nautical miles offshore and to the median line in the Bristol Channel. The DSFC currently has 29 byelaws in place, including several that restrict trawling activity in their District (Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, 2010). These byelaws are summarised in Table 4.

Devon SFC’s main office is on the south coast of Devon at Brixham. Fishery officers carry out shore-based patrols along the north Devon coast. Enforcement at sea in the Bristol Channel is carried out using Devon SFC’s Rigid Inflatable Boat (RIB) and in partnership with Cornwall SFC, using their patrol boat, the FPV St Pirran.

7.2.4.2 Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee (CSFC) also has a District extending to 6 nautical miles offshore of baselines. Cornwall SFC is based in Newlyn. Its officers and patrol vessels police the coast and seas around Cornwall, on the southern side of the Bristol Channel. There are currently 18 byelaws regulating fishing activity in the CSFC District (Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee, 2010). The CSFC byelaws relating to trawling activity are summarised in Table 4.

7.2.5 Environment Agency The Environment Agency has responsibility within the area for inspection and enforcement of the regulations relating to salmon, sea trout and eels under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act of 1975 and the Environment Act 1995, and also for management of sea fisheries in tidal waters upstream of SFC boundaries. This includes bass nursery areas in the Taw and Torridge (Devon) and Three Rivers (south Wales) (see Figure 9).

7 .3 Legislation and Regulation The UoC fishery is subject to legislation and regulations made by all of the organisations described in the previous section; there is no single management entity or body of legislation for the fishery. However, enforcement of this legislation is well integrated (see section 7.4.3 ).

Fishery Regulations made by the European Commission and European Council have primacy over domestic and local legislation made within a Member States. There are legislative and administrative systems in place to ensure that Member States must implement EC Regulations to their full extent. The provisions of EC Fisheries Regulations can also be strengthened by local or domestic legislation within Member States. For instance, in the case of bass, the EC sets a minimum legal size of 36cm in its Regulation 850/98/EC. The South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee made a more restrictive byelaw setting a MLS for bass of 37.5cm, which was acceptable under Article 46 of Regulation

FN 82061 v4 Page 39 850/98/EC since it goes “…beyond the minimum requirements laid down…” in the Regulation.

The key legislation and Regulations relating to this fishery are briefly summarised here.

7.3.1 European Union legislation The key EU fishery Regulations relating to the unit of certification are the MLS for bass, and also restrictions on the minimum mesh size that can be used when fishing for bass. These Regulations are summarised in Table 4.

An important feature of EU fishery regulations is the principle of “Relative Stability”. This principle controls which vessels from EU Member States can fish in other Member State’s territorial waters (closer than 12nm offshore), restricts fishing within 6nm offshore to vessels from the coastal Member State, and sets the proportional allocation of Total Allowable Catches (TACs) of quota species (not bass), based on historic rights.

For the Bristol Channel this means that only UK vessels can fish in the 0-6m zone, and that French and Belgian vessels can fish in the 6-12 nm zone.

7.3.2 National (UK and Welsh) legislation Unlike the management regime for many commercial species under the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, the UK's strategy for bass conservation in the late 1980s did not include direct controls on either the catch (TAC and quotas) or effort level in the sea bass fishery. This was mainly because there were doubts about the efficacy of these types of control in a fragmented multi-gear (and species) fishery that employed mainly small, inshore boats, and there were insufficient assessment data on which to base quantitative analyses. To date, only technical conservation regulations introduced as Statutory Instruments (SIs) under the UK's Sea Fisheries legislation have been used to control fishing for sea bass (see section 5.2.4).

On the basis of advice provided by Cefas (then the Directorate of Fisheries Research), presented in Pawson and Pickett (1987) and subject to a dozen or so regional consultation meetings, three SIs were laid down in a package of technical measures introduced in England and Wales in 1990, increasing the minimum legal size (MLS) to 36 cm total length, introducing complementary mesh size controls for enmeshing nets in England and Wales, and implementing 34 nursery areas in which fishing for bass from a boat was prohibited. The number of nursery areas was increased to 37 in 1999, when the use of sand eels as bait was also prohibited in these areas.

Relevant bass nursery areas are in the Camel Estuary (closed May-Nov. inclusive) and Taw and Torridge joint estuary in Bideford Bay (closed May-Oct. inclusive), around the warm-water outfall of Aberthaw power station (all year), and in Burry Inlet, the Gwendraeth, Tywi and Taf estuaries (“Three rivers”) in Carmarthen Bay and Milford Haven (all May-Oct. Incl.) (MAFF, 1990). The locations of these areas are illustrated in Figure 9.

FN 82061 v4 Page 40 Figure 9: Illustrating the location of bass nursery areas in the unit of certification area.

The 36 cm MLS for sea bass was simultaneously adopted at EU level in 1990 - whilst the principle of a banned range of net mesh sizes (70-90 mm) to protect juvenile sea bass was retained in the first controls on mesh sizes for enmeshing nets introduced, for fixed nets only, at Community level (Annex VI of Council Regulation 850/98/EC).

Note that there is no corresponding linkage between MLS and MMS for trawls, in part because inshore trawl fisheries for bass were relatively insignificant when the UK’s package of management measures was being developed in the 1980s (Pickett and Pawson, 1994), and because the main trawl fishery development was directed at offshore pre-spawning and spawning aggregations, in which the numbers of bass < 36 cm are negligible (Pawson et al., 2007a).

7.3.2.1 Registration of Buyers and Sellers of fish The Registration of Buyers and Sellers (RBS) and Designation of Fish Auction Sites scheme has been fully operational in England since 2005 and 2006 in Wales (SI 2005 No 1605 and SI 2006 No 1495 (W.145) respectively).

These Regulations require that all buyers and sellers of first-sale fish are registered and that all auction sites of first-sale fish are designated. Once registered, buyers and sellers are able to buy and

FN 82061 v4 Page 41 sell fish directly from vessels’ landings and must submit either a buyer’s or seller’s sales note to the local fisheries office within 48 hours of the sale taking place. In addition, buyers and sellers are also required to keep records of each purchase and sale. These records shall be made available for inspection at all reasonable times

Since the introduction of the scheme, representatives of the industry have acknowledged the positive impact it has had on compliance by providing greater transparency, improved cross checking of fish landings data and contribution to reduced levels of undeclared landings (MMO, 2010)

7.3.3 Sea Fisheries Committee Byelaws SFC Committees are able to make, amend and revoke fishery byelaws that apply within their Fisheries District and are made as a response to local issues. The process for making, amending and revoking byelaws is set out in statute and administrative procedures. Briefly, this process involves scrutiny of byelaw proposals by the Members of the Committee, Government officials, public advertisement and consultation and ultimately Ministerial approval. It is an open and transparent process that is based upon and seeks relevant information, provides opportunity for interested parties to be involved, and which is formally required to explain how this information is used. Local Government legislation applies to the activities of the Committees and prevents any Committee Member with a prejudicial interest from using their position on the Committee for personal gain.

In Devon and Cornwall, the principal byelaws affecting the fishery are the restrictions on the size of vessels that can operate in the Committee Districts (15.24 m in Devon; 18.28 m in Cornwall). These byelaws prevent larger vessels from working inside 6 nm.

In Wales, there is a sea bass MLS of 37.5 cm, a minimum mesh size of 100 mm for enmeshing gears, and there are prohibitions on the use of towed gear, trawls and seine nets around Milford Haven, various drift net restrictions (chiefly aimed at avoiding catches of salmon and sea trout), specified allowed dimensions of drift, set, stop, beach seine drag and other nets, and limits to vessel size. These measures were initially introduced by the South Wales SFC as byelaws, and were subsequently been transferred to the Welsh Assembly Government on 1st April 2010.

The SFC byelaws that are relevant to this fishery are summarised in Table 4.

FN 82061 v4 Page 42 Table 4: Summary of key fisheries regulations relevant to the unit of certification.

Item Summary

EC Legislation Regulation 850/98/EC Sets a minimum legal size (MLS) of 36cm for bass. Sets a minimum mesh size (MMS) for gill nets at which bass can be retained on board a fishing vessel at 90mm Regulation 2371/2002/EC Establishes requirement for all buyer and sellers of fish to be registered.

National (UK) Legislation Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 Establishes Sea Fisheries Committees and enables them to make byelaws for regulating inshore fisheries. Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 Grants power to the Minister to make Orders for regulating fisheries (such as the bass nursery areas Order below). The Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibitions of Establish 37 bass nursery areas around the UK Fishing Order 1990 (SI 1990 No 1156 (as (see Figure 9 for areas in the unit of amended by SI 1992 No 3027 and SI 1999 No certification). 75) The Undersized Bass Order 1989 (SI 1989 No This established a national MLS for bass of 1285). 36cm. The Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Requires all buyers and sellers of fish to be Designation of Fish Auction Sites Regulations registered and to submit records of transactions. 2005 (SI 2005 No 1605)

Welsh Assembly Government Transitional Order 2010 (SI 2010 No 630) Transfers all powers for managing sea fisheries in Wales from Sea Fisheries Committees to WAG. The Welsh Zone Order 2010 (SI 2010 No 760) Establishes the “Welsh Zone” for fisheries management (see Figure 8). The Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Requires all buyers and sellers of fish in Wales to Designation of Fish Auction Sites (Wales) be registered and to submit records of Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 No 1495) (W.145) transactions.

FN 82061 v4 Page 43 Item Summary

Sea Fisheries Committees

Sea Fisheries (Byelaws) Regulations 1985 Set out the formal procedure that SFCs must follow to ensure adequate stakeholder engagement when making new byelaws.

Devon Sea Fisheries Committee Byelaw 14 Prohibits trawling in and around the Lundy Marine Nature Reserve1 Byelaw 18 Prohibits vessels larger than 15.24 m overall length from operating within the District.

Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee Trawling Byelaw 1999 Prohibits vessels larger than 18.28 m overall length or 221 kW engine power from fishing within the District, subject to certain historical rights and registration by the Committee. (Only 6 of these larger vessels are permitted within the District, and are confined to the 3-6nm zone).

South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee (now WAG) Byelaw 8 – Bass Minimum Size Prohibits removal of bass with a length less than 37.5 cm. Byelaw 25 – Prohibition area for towed gear, Prohibits used of towed gear in the Milford Milford Haven Haven upstream of the A477 Pembroke to Neyland bridge. Byelaw 26 – Prohibition of trawling, Milford Prohibits trawling within the Milford Haven. Haven Byelaw 29 – Bass Nursery Area Restrictions on Prohibits fishing for any seafish using a boat fishing within the bass nursery areas at Aberthaw Power Station (all year), and from 1st May to 31st October in the Burry Inlet, the Three Rivers, and Milford Haven. Byelaw 38 – Maximum vessel size Prohibits vessels exceeding 150 capacity units2 from fishing within the District (6nm offshore) unless they have historical access rights. Prohibits any vessel longer than 15.9m overall length from fishing within 3nm of the shore. Byelaw 41 – Boat fishing (catch returns) permit Requires all vessels working within the District to obtain a permit and submit returns of fishing to the SFC.

1 The Lundy Marine Nature Reserve is now a Marine Conservation Zone under the Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009. 2 Capacity unit = (overall length in metres x breadth in metres) + (engine power in kW x 0.45)

FN 82061 v4 Page 44 7.3.4 Long term objectives

Within the UK, the DEFRA objectives for the west coast stock unit are the same as those for all sea bass stocks within UK waters: to ensure biological sustainability and to maximise the yield per recruit to the fishery. This has been achieved by raising the age at first capture to around six years old through a package of technical measures introduced in 1990 (36cm minimum landing size, a ban on the use of enmeshing nets with mesh sizes between 60mm and 90mm and the closure of 37 designated sea bass nursery areas to fishing for sea bass from a boat (MAFF, 1990)). The resultant improvement of the exploitation pattern in the inshore fisheries of England and Wales has seen a change from peak exploitation at ages 3 to 5 in the 1980s to around age 6 since 1990 (Pawson et al., 2005). This improvement has considerably ameliorated the pattern of growth-overfishing of sea bass which took place in the 1980s (ICES, 2002).

Although the UK’s objectives are well defined, there are no explicit management objectives for any of the bass stock units within the ICES area (ICES, 2004b). The EC has decided to apply the precautionary approach in taking measures to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to provide for their sustainable exploitation and to minimise the impact of fishing on marine ecosystems.

7.3.5 Incentives for sustainable fishing There are no subsidies operating in this fishery that might encourage unsustainable fishing. The management system sets out a range of technical measures (fish MLS; net mesh size; restriction on vessel size etc) that are designed to promote sustainable fishing. These measures are based on scientific information and consultation with the industry to ensure that they do not have perverse consequences, and they are statutory, so that transgressions can be discouraged through enforcement action.

Local fishery management through SFCs provides the industry with a formal stewardship role in the management of fisheries in the Bristol Channel. The industry also has opportunities to participate directly in research through the Government’s Fisheries-Science Partnership (resulting in publications such as the recent report by Catchpole (2009)).

The management system for this fishery is well established and understood by the industry, with a strong local presence to ensure understanding of, and compliance with, all relevant legislation. Formal mechanisms are in place to provide opportunities for direct stakeholder engagement in any changes to the management system for the fishery.

It has already been noted in section 7.3.2 that there is no linkage between the MLS for bass and trawl mesh size. The mesh size used in the trawl fishery is capable of catching bass that are smaller than the MLS. Anecdotal reports from stakeholders suggest that on occasion a significant number of undersized bass may be caught and discarded. While this is not illegal, concerns are raised about the sustainability of this practice during the site visit.

7 .4 Fishery specific management system

7.4.1 Fishery specific objectives As noted above (section 7.3.4 ) there are no clear long-term or short-term objectives for this fishery, other than the DEFRA objectives for the west coast bass stock that its exploitation should be biologically sustainable and managed to maximise yield per recruit to the fishery.

FN 82061 v4 Page 45 7.4.2 Decision making processes The administration of the fishery incorporates decision making processes that engage scientists and stakeholders to help formulate management measures to conserve fisheries.

The European Commission is accessible to interested parties to make direct representations, and has received representations from recreational anglers for management of bass fisheries to take account of their interests (BASS, 2004). The Commission may well decide to ask the Member State concerned for its opinion before taking such matters forward and, in the case of sea bass, sought ICES advice on sustainability issues (ICES 2002). Consideration by the Commission may range from a meeting between DG Fish and the complainant to formal discussion in the Commission's Fisheries Advisory Committee. Any necessary legislative action would be on the basis of a proposal by the Commission to the Council of Ministers.

Disputes between the Member States and the Commission are resolved in the Council of Ministers if bilateral discussions have not been able to resolve the issue. Both the Commission and the Council of Ministers can be called to account through the normal political process in the European Parliament. Ultimately, any European Citizen or organisation can take legal action against the Council of Ministers in the European Court of Justice. This is a system which is widely known and has been used when considered necessary.

There are mechanisms at National level for issues to be raised by industry and other bodies with National Governments and resolved where possible by them. Evidence of these measures can be seen in action in the Government’s proposal for and consultations on a change to the bass MLS in 2006/7, which was eventually abandoned in response to stakeholders’ concerns. The location and extent of the bass nursery areas around the UK coast also took into account scientific information from monitoring as well as stakeholder views, illustrating how the national management regime adapts and responds to such information.

The main opportunity for participation in decision-making processes arises at the SFC level of management. The SFC Committee membership comprises locally elected Members, representatives of the fishing industry, and Members with expertise in marine environmental matters. The SFC is also duty-bound to have regard to the conservation of marine flora and fauna in all of its actions; and to take a very precautionary approach to fisheries management when it may impact upon marine wildlife (evidence of which can be seen in the SFC and WAG byelaws relating to Lundy and Skomer islands, each of which are designated Marine Conservation zones). Together, these measures ensure that SFC decisions take account of all relevant issues in a timely and transparent manner.

7.4.3 Compliance & enforcement Fisheries legislation is enforced throughout the UoC area by UK enforcement bodies working on land and at sea, and using VMS satellite information (for vessels over 15m long) to monitor the fishery. These bodies are well equipped to carry out their task, and supported by legal sanctions that provide an effective deterrence to non-compliance.

There is a high degree of cooperation between the SFCs, MMO and WAG in the policing of fisheries in the Bristol Channel. Devon and Cornwall SFCs share warrants and enforcement duties along the southern side of the Bristol Channel. Their officers also carry limited British Sea Fishery Officer warrants which enable the SFCs to work closely with the MMO to enforce national legislation.

The industry works with these organisations to provide information that assists with the management of the fishery. This information is provided as a statutory requirement in the form of landings and sales data required by the “Registered Buyers and Sellers” regulations introduced in 2005 (in

FN 82061 v4 Page 46 England) and 2006 (in Wales). The industry has also worked with the Government through its Fisheries Science Partnership scheme to trial the use of new types of fishing gear in the fishery (Catchpole, 2009).

There are no reports of systematic non-compliance with legislation in the fleet being considered for certification. The assessment team did, however, learn of alleged transgressions by North Devon trawlers. It is our understanding that one of the vessels in the unit of certification may have been prosecuted for retaining undersized plaice within the area.

7.4.4 Research Plan Although there has been considerable research into the bass population and its fishery in this area, there is no formal research plan at the EC, national or local level.

The main thrust of research work has been to understand the population biology of sea bass and environmental influences on its distribution and abundance (including the impact of the Sea Empress Oil spill in 2006), and to develop monitoring schemes and analytical modelling techniques that can take into account the changing dynamics of sea bass fisheries, mixing between adjacent stock units, and the quality of the basic biological and fishery data (e.g. Mayer, 198?; Lancaster, 1991; Jennings and Pawson, 1992; Reynolds et al., 2003; Pawson et al., 2007b). The results of this work are summarised in the relevant sections of this report. Pawson et al. (2007a and 2007b) discuss the implications of these results in relation to the need for further model development to provide quantitative advice on the management of sea bass fisheries. It is worth noting that bass is currently a non-quota species, the fisheries for which have been managed effectively in the UK for the last 20 years without having the benefit of quantitative estimates of SSB (Pawson, 2008).

The most recent study on the UoC fishery involved trials to improve trawl selectivity and reduce discards under the FSP (see 9.2: Catchpole, 2009). The results of this work are available from the Cefas website. Research into the environmental effects of the fishery is also freely and publicly available (for instance Gubbay & Knapman, 1998; Elliott et al, 1998).

7.4.5 Monitoring and evaluation At the EC level, the performance of the management system is reviewed annually through the work of ICES (e.g. ICES, 2009). Any failings in the management system that are manifest in fish population terms (e.g. reduced SSB or recruitment, increases in discards etc) would be identified by ICES scientists, who are independent of the EC institutions and thus provide an authoritative external review system. There is also a regular decadal review of fisheries policy at the EC level. The last review was completed in 2002, and was preceded by an internal review of policy followed by consultation with stakeholders before the revised CFP was agreed. The process for review of the CFP in 2012 was just beginning at the time of this assessment.

At the domestic level, systems for review are less regular, but provide greater opportunities for external participation by the fishing industry and other stakeholders. The administration of fisheries at the national level was reviewed by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit in the 2004 “Net Benefits” report (UK Cabinet Office, 2004) and the subsequent Defra response “Securing the Benefits” published in 2005 (Defra, 2005). The results of these reviews have recently been implemented through the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. All aspects of UK fisheries management were scrutinised during this process of review and institutional reform by stakeholders, officials and in Parliament. The result of this process is that the SFCs in Wales have been merged with the Welsh Assembly Government; and in England the MMO was created in April 2010, with IFCAs due to be established in April 2011.

At the local level, the regular cycle of Sea Fisheries Committee meetings throughout the year ensures that all aspects of fishery management by Officers are kept under constant review by their Members.

FN 82061 v4 Page 47 This system also ensures that byelaws are kept under scrutiny and reviewed as appropriate to take account of changing situations. The decisions of SFCs are also subject to external scrutiny by stakeholders, and by statutory consultees, including nature conservation agencies.

FN 82061 v4 Page 48 8 OTHER FISHERIES AFFECTING TARGET STOCK

The sea bass stock at which the UoC is directed is part of a population that migrates along the west coast of England and Wales, spawning in deep water in the western English Channel and eastern Celtic Sea, from which post-larvae recruit to nursery grounds in estuaries and harbours in the Bristol Channel and along the Welsh coast (Jennings and Pawson, 1992; Pawson et al., 2007b). The offshore pre- spawning and spawning aggregations of adult bass have been targeted by French mid-water pair- trawlers and a few British vessels in winter since the early 1980s (Pawson, 2008).

In addition to the UoC, bass are taken all year round along the South-west English coast, in a directed fishery from small boats using fixed gill nets and drift nets inshore, by trolling/handlining with artificial sandeel baits around offshore rocks and reefs, and by both recreational and commercial rod- and-line fisheries operating from the shore and in boats off estuary mouths and headlands.

Along the south coast of Wales, bass are taken from small boats using gill, trammel and stake nets, often set close inshore, and by drift nets, by rod and line or handline around offshore reefs and areas of tidal overfalls. Further to the north, commercial and recreational angling tends to predominate, together with fixed gill or trammel and drifted nets along the north Wales and north-west English coasts.

The assessment team noted during the course of the site visit that the aggregation of bass in particular parts of the Bristol Channel also causes an aggregation of commercial and recreational fishermen. Concerns were raised about the behaviour of certain trawl vessels towards other fishermen during the site visit. These concerns are reported in section 19 of this report, and summarised in section 12 .2 .

FN 82061 v4 Page 49 9 ACTION TAKEN BY THE CLIENT

9 .1 Voluntary measures The client has been working to establish a voluntary closed area within the UoC where it is proposed there should be no fishing with trawls between December 1st and May 31st (Figure 10), This area is considered by local vessels to be important for juvenile rays during this period. This closure is observed by the vessels listed in the unit of certification. The client is working to encourage wider support for this closed area.

Figure 10: Voluntary marine conservation area established by the North Devon Fishermens’ Association.

9 .2 Trial of square meshes in trawls One vessel in the UoC, the MFV Cerulean, was used in trials to improve trawl selectivity and reduce discards under the Fisheries-Science Partnership (FSP), a Defra-funded collaborative programme of scientific research between the UK fishing industry and scientists (Catchpole, 2009).

In July and August 2009, a trawl modified to incorporate a section of 90mm knotless square-mesh netting was fished against a control trawl over 46 hauls, from which catches were scientifically sampled and video footage was taken of fish behaviour at the square-mesh section.

The percentage of undersized bass in the total bass catch was 11% when using the experimental trawl and 30% when using the control trawl, whilst the catch rate (number) of discards of other species was on average 14% lower when using the square-mesh section. Further details are provided in sections 5 .3 , 6.2 and 6.3 of this report.

FN 82061 v4 Page 50 10 STANDARD USED

The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the fishery is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles. Principle 1 addresses the need to maintain the target stock at a sustainable level; Principle 2 addresses the need to maintain the ecosystem in which the target stock exists, and Principle 3 addresses the need for an effective fishery management system to fulfil Principles 1 and 2 and ensure compliance with national and international regulations. The Principles and their supporting Criteria are presented below.

10 .1 Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 3:

The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term.

Criteria:

1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame. 3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.

10 .2 Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

Criteria:

1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes.

2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species.

3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with

3 The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional consultations

FN 82061 v4 Page 51 the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields.

10 .3 Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery.

A. Management System Criteria:

1. The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement.

The management system shall:

2. Demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to subsistence, artisanal, and fishing-dependent communities shall be addressed as part of this process.

3. Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings.

4. Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability.

5. Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system4.

6. Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing.

7. Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty.

8. Incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion.

9. Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted.

10. Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to:

4 Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from certification.

FN 82061 v4 Page 52 a) setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community’s high productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species; b) identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas; c) providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels within specified time frames; d) mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached; e) establishing no-take zones where appropriate.

11. Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are.

B. Operational Criteria

Fishing operation shall:

12. Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimise mortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive.

13. Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas.

14. Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives;

15. Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch etc.

16. Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative requirements.

17. Assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery.

FN 82061 v4 Page 53 11 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION

11 .1 Evaluation Team

Lead Assessor: Jim Andrews Jim has 17 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. He has an extensive practical knowledge of both fisheries and environmental management and enforcement under UK and EC legislation. Jim has formal legal training, with a special interest in the policy, governance and management of fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems. He worked with the UK Government and Government Agencies to implement the EC Habitats Directive at the local and national level; and also chaired Government working groups preparing new marine nature conservation legislation. Before working in fisheries management Jim developed integrated coastal zone management plans in protected wildlife sites for English Nature, one of the UK’s statutory nature conservation agencies. Today, he is Director of AWJ Ltd, a company that provides legal, policy and management advice to fishery regulators and environmental managers; as well as working with the fishing industry and regulators to develop sustainable fisheries that are compatible with the ecosystems of protected wildlife sites. Jim has been involved in the review of several MSC certification assessments including the South-West Mackerel Handline Fishery, Loch Torridon Nephrops, Burry Inlet Cockles, North Sea Herring and South Georgia Patagonian Toothfish. He has worked as an assessor and lead assessor on MSC certifications within the UK and Europe and in India. In 2008 he worked with the MSC and WWF on one of the pilot assessments using the new MSC Risk Based Assessment Framework. Jim has carried out numerous MSC Chain of Custody assessments within the UK.

Expert Advisor: Mike Pawson Mike Pawson recently retired as senior fisheries advisor at Cefas, Lowestoft, after 39 years carrying out biological research and providing scientific advice to Defra, the EC and other national and international organisations on fish stock abundance (marine teleosts, elasmobranches, salmonids and eels), technical conservation measures and fisheries management regulations, and on related monitoring, sampling, survey and research programmes. Between 1974 and 1980, he initiated and led acoustic surveys for blue whiting and mackerel, in L. Turkana, Kenya, and trawl surveys in the North Sea (1975-1979), and then spent 1 year working as an UNESCO Expert in Ichthyology in Tripoli, Libya. From 1980 to 1990, Mike designed and managed MAFF's coastal fisheries programme, implementing biological sampling, trawl surveys, a fishermen’s logbook scheme and socio-economic evaluation of sea bass fisheries, and between 1990 and 2000 he led the Cefas Western demersal team, providing analytical assessments and management advice for 12 finfish stocks. During this time he was co-ordinator of the Anglo-French English Channel Fisheries Study Group (1989-1997) and chairman of the ICES Southern Shelf Demersal Stock Assessment Working Group (1996-98), and subsequently chaired the ICES Seabass Study Group (2000-04) and Elasmobranch Study Group (2001-02). He has initiated and managed EU-funded multi-national projects on methods for egg-production stock biomass estimation, bio-geographical identity of English Channel fish stocks, bio-economic modelling of Channel fisheries, development of assessment methods for elasmobranchs, marine recreational fishing in Europe etc.

Mike has provided scientific evaluation, quality assurance and advice to several national and EC- funded projects on fisheries biology, monitoring and assessment, and one of his major roles over the last 15 years has been peer-reviewing papers, reports and manuscripts in preparation. Since 2002, Mike directed and managed the assessment of salmon and eel stocks in England and Wales and provided scientific advice on their conservation. All of Mike's work has been published in refereed Journals, in ICES and EC working group reports, and in contract reports.

FN 82061 v4 Page 54 11 .2 Previous certification evaluations

The fishery has not been previously assessed against the MSC standard.

11 .3 Inspections of the Fishery

Inspection of the fishery focused on the practicalities of fishing operations, the mechanisms and effectiveness of management agencies and the scientific assessment of the fisheries.

Meetings were held as follows. Some of the key issues discussed have been identified for each meeting.

Name Affiliation Date Key Issues John Butterwith North Devon Fishermen’s 9th February  Activities of the client fleet Association 2010  Participation in trials of new fishing gear & methods  Implementation of conservation projects by the client fleet, including no-take zones in the Bristol Channel. Tony Rutherford Bideford Fisheries Ltd 9th February  Shore-based commercial activities 2010 associated with the fishery. R.L. Talbot North Devon Fishermen’s 9th February  Description of fishing areas, Association 2010 catches, sizes of fish, capture rates of non-target species. Scott Wharton Owner, F.V. Cerulean 9th February  Description of fishing activity by 2010 vessel, catch rates, support for new fishing gear trials. John Le Balleur BASS Society 9th February  Effect of the bass trawl fishery on 2010 the abundance and population structure of bass in the Bristol Channel.  Compatibility of regulations in force for bass with the effects of the trawl fishery on stocks. Ali Hood, John Shark Trust 10th February  Capture of elasmobranchs in Richardson, Rick 2010 Bristol Channel trawl fisheries. Hurst  Conservation status of elasmobranchs in UK waters. Julian Roberts District Inspector, Marine & 10th February  Fisheries regulations relevant to Fisheries Agency 2010 the Unit of Certification fleet  Levels of enforcement activity & compliance issues. Roger Covey Senior Marine Specialist, 10th February  Relationship between the fishery Natural England 2010 and marine wildlife conservation in the Bristol Channel. W. Lawrence Senior Fishery Officer, 10th February  Levels of enforcement and Devon Sea Fisheries 2010 compliance in the Unit of Committee Certification along the Devon coast. Edwin Derriman Chief Fishery Officer, 10th February  Levels of enforcement and Cornwall Sea Fisheries 2010 compliance in the Unit of Committee Certification along the Cornwall and North Devon coast. Phil Marshall Welsh Assembly Government 11th February  Enforcement and compliance 2010

FN 82061 v4 Page 55 Name Affiliation Date Key Issues Stuart Evans Welsh Assembly Government 11th February issues associated with the Unit of 2010 Certification fleet in Welsh Terry Allen Welsh Assembly Government 11th February Waters. 2010 Mark Stafford South Wales Sea Fisheries 11th February  Welsh SFC byelaws releavant to Committee 2010 the fishery.  Enforcement and compliance issues associated with the Unit of Certification fleet in inshore Welsh Waters. 20 representatives* Welsh Angling Interests 11th February  The adverse effect of the bass 2010 trawl fishery on the size and abundance of bass within the Bristol Channel  The level of discarding of juvenile and non-target fish by the bass trawl vessels.  18 representatives* Welsh Commercial 11th February  The adverse effect of the bass Fishermen (South & West 2010 trawl fishery on the size and Wales Fishing Communities) abundance of bass within the Bristol Channel.  The level of discarding of juvenile and non-target fish by the bass trawl vessels.  The effect of the bass trawl fleet on the commercial viability of other more selective methods of bass fishing in the Bristol Channel.

* Not listed here, but recorded in meeting attendance sheets by the assessment team.

The main issues that have emerged during consultations about this fishery assessment are summarised in section 12 .2 , and also recorded in more detail in section 19 .

FN 82061 v4 Page 56 12 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

12 .1 Stakeholder Consultation Stakeholders were identified and consulted specifically by Moody Marine for this assessment. Over 50 stakeholders participated in the site visit, which took place at locations in Devon and South Wales. Information was also made publicly available at the following stages of the assessment:

Date Purpose Media 19th June 2009 Announcement of assessment Direct E-mail/letter Notification on MSC website Advertisement in press 24th June 2009 Notification of Assessment Team Direct E-mail nominees Notification on MSC website 25th November 2009 Notification of intent to use MSC Direct E-mail FAM Standard Assessment Tree Notification on MSC website 14th December 2009 Notification of assessment visit and Direct E-mail call for meeting requests Notification on MSC website 9th-11th February Assessment visit Meetings 2010 12th October 2010 Notification of Proposed Peer Direct E-mail Reviewers Notification on MSC website 11th February 2011 Notification of Public Draft Report Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website 10th August 2011 Notification of Final Report Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website

12.1.1 Stakeholder input to Risk Based Framework Assessment Where the MSC Risk Based Framework is applied to a fishery assessment, it is required that the stakeholder consultation process is clearly documented. The consultation process is summarised in the table above.

The key mechanism for stakeholder input to the RBF assessment was via the meetings held during the site visit, and in subsequent correspondence. These are documented in section 19 of this report.

12 .2 Stakeholder Issues

The key issues raised by stakeholders during the site visit were:-

 Discarding small bass – there were concerns about the levels of discarding of small bass (under the MLS in various areas) from the trawl fishery. There were concerns that this was due to fishing with trawls in inshore areas where smaller bass were found.

 Stock status – a range of views were expressed about the status of the bass stock. There were concerns about localised depletion of the stock in response to fishing by trawlers in the area, and also worries about the overall status of the west coast bass stock.

 Antisocial behaviour – stakeholders from the recreational and commercial bass fishing sector from other parts of the Bristol Channel were very concerned about anti-social and potentially dangerous behaviour directed towards them by one or more vessels from the unit of certification fleet.

Further information on stakeholder issues raised during the site visit is documented in section 19 of this report.

FN 82061 v4 Page 57 13 OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING

13 .1 Introduction to scoring methodology

The MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements of certified fishery. These Principles and Criteria have been developed into a standard (Fishery Assessment Methodology) assessment tree - Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts - by the MSC, which is used in this assessment.

The Performance Indicators (PIs) have been released on the MSC website. In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, each PI has three associated Scoring Guideposts (SGs) which identify the level of performance necessary to achieve 100, 80 (a pass score), and 60 scores for each Performance Indicator; 100 represents a theoretically ideal level of performance and 60 a measurable shortfall.

For each Performance Indicators, the performance of the fishery is assessed as a ‘score’. In order for the fishery to achieve certification, an overall weighted average score of 80 is necessary for each of the three Principles and no Indicator should score less than 60. As it is not considered possible to allocate precise scores, a scoring interval of five is used in evaluations. As this represents a relatively crude level of scoring, average scores for each Principle are rounded to one decimal place..

Weights and scores for the Fishery are presented in the scoring table (Appendix A).

13 .2 The Risk Based Framework The Risk Based Framework (RBF) was introduced by the MSC to enable data-deficient fisheries to be assessed against the MSC standard. The RBF can only be used to assess certain Performance Indicators (currently 1.1.1 Stock Status; 2.1.1 Retained Species; 2.2.1 Bycatch [Discarded] species; 2.4.1 Habitats; and 2.5.1 Ecosystems).

The rationale for using the RBF is set out in detail in the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology (FAM) and in MSC Directive 17v2. To summarise, the RBF can be triggered if the stock status relative to unfished cannot be determined and / or there are no biologically based reference points for the species.

The process for using the RBF is set out in the MSC (FAM). It is a complex process that involves two steps:-

Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) – this is a structured qualitative assessment approach that uses expert judgement and anecdotal information to help to establish whether or not a particular aspect of the fishery meets the MSC standard.

Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) – this uses information about species life history and the characteristics of different fishing methods to determine whether or not fishery removals are likely to be sustainable and thus compatible with the MSC standard.

The RBF procedure is set out in detail in the FAM. A diagrammatic summary of the procedure has been developed by Moody International to aid understanding of the RBF process and is shown in Figure 11.

The RBF approach has been used in this assessment where there has been insufficient information available to enable assessment using the conventional approach.

FN 82061 v4 Page 58 Image © Moody International 2011

Figure 11 Diagram summarising the procedure for using the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology (FAM) and the Risk Based Framework (RBF) to assess a fishery, and the circumstances for using Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA) and Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) to assess eligible Performance Indicators

The SICA assessment of a fishery can be greatly assisted by stakeholder views during the site visit. Prior to conducting stakeholder interviews, the assessment team had reviewed the available published information to provide a focus for use of the RBF in the assessment and a focus for the interviews with stakeholders.

The stakeholder consultation process is described in section 12 .1 of this report. The SICA scores returned for the fishery in section 16.2.1 take account of stakeholder views and information relating to the fishery. Stakeholders consulted during the site visit are listed in section 2 .3 of this report.

FN 82061 v4 Page 59 14 LIMIT OF IDENTIFICATION OF LANDINGS FROM THE FISHERY

Traceability of product from the sea to the consumer is vital to ensure that the MSC standard is maintained. There are several aspects to traceability that the MSC require to be evaluated: Traceability within the fishery; at-sea processing; at the point of landing; and subsequently the eligibility of product to enter the chain of custody. These requirements are assessed here.

14 .1 Traceability within the fishery

Traceability within the fishery is achieved through the use of satellite monitoring (VMS) on larger vessels, and EC logbook requirements for all other vessels. The Unit of Certification area covers the maximum range of the vessels proposed for certification (these are listed in Table 1).

It is highly unlikely that any bass caught by the fleet under assessment from outside the area would be landed at any port in the Unit of Certification area, simply because of the practical limitations of the vessels under assessment. However there is a risk that MSC and non-MSC bass could become mixed, and mechanisms to prevent this should be implemented aboard fishing vessels.

14 .2 At-sea processing

There is no at-sea processing in this fishery.

14 .3 Points of landing The vessels in the client fleet land to the ports of Appledore, Saundersfoot, Milford Haven Ilfracombe and Swansea within the unit of certification area. Two of the client fleet (the Elizabeth N and Nellie) are based in Newlyn and only fish within the unit of certification occasionally, but would be eligible to land at these ports also.

To reduce the risk of bass from the Unit of Certification being mixed with bass from other areas, the assessment team consider that only bass landed by vessels in the unit of certification fleet at the ports of Appledore, Saundersfoot, Milford Haven Ilfracombe and Swansea lie within the scope of certification.

14 .4 Eligibility to enter chains of custody

The scope of this certification ends at the points of landing which are listed above, to the first point of sale of the fish. Onward certification of the product would require appropriate certification of storage and handling facilities at these locations.

14 .5 Target Eligibility date

The target eligibility date was 31st August 2010 (being less than 6 months prior to the publication of the Public Comment Draft Report).

This eligibility date is applicable to any bass that have been caught since the eligibility date and for which the risks identified above have been adequately and demonstrably addressed (i.e. through documented proof of point of capture, and separation of MSC and non-MSC product at all subsequent stages of the Chain of Custody).

We recommend that the traceability risks identified above should be addressed through appropriate measures requiring recording, handling and labelling of bass caught within the unit of certification

FN 82061 v4 Page 60 area. This issue should be addressed through Chain of Custody audits for members of the unit of certification and is a key issue requiring annual surveillance.

FN 82061 v4 Page 61 15 ASSESSMENT RESULTS

The Performance of the Fishery in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 is summarised below:

MSC Principle Fishery Performance Principle 1: Sustainability of Exploited Stock Overall : 77.5 FAIL

Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem Overall : 79.3 FAIL

Principle 3: Effective Management System Overall : 79.3 FAIL

The fishery did not attain a score of 80 or more against any of the MSC Principles. It is therefore determined that the Bristol Channel Bass Trawl Fishery should not be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

The full scoring table for the fishery is set out in Table 5. Conditions that relate to the Performance Indicators that scored less than 80 are set out below.

15 .1 Conditions

The fishery attained a score of below 80 against 12 Performance Indicators. It did not attain the MSC pass standard overall.

In line with MSC scheme requirements5, the assessment team has set draft and non-binding conditions relating to each Performance Indicators where the MSC standard was not achieved. Since the fishery has failed to attain the MSC standard, it is not appropriate to include a Client Action Plan in this report.

Condition Number 1 – Stock Status Performance Indicator 1.1.1 SG60 Standard It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. SG80 Standard It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.

The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point. SG100 Standard There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.

There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years. Score Awarded 70 Rationale The status of the bass stock relative to an unfished population cannot be estimated. The most recent ICES assessment for the larger area (ICES VIIa, f, g) ran to 2004 and was updated to 2006. There is no more recent information to update our knowledge of bass stock trends beyond 2006. The assessment team conclude that the Risk Based Framework should be used to assess the stock status.

5 TAB Directive D-024 Fisheries that Fail Assessment, July 2009

FN 82061 v4 Page 62 The most recent assessment results (Pawson et al., 2007a; Kupschus et al., 2008) suggest that bass stocks in ICES Divisions a,f,g are being exploited sustainably, at a moderate e level of F and with an exploitation pattern that gives a near maximum yield per recruit, and that this has led to an increase in exploitable biomass since the early 1990s to levels considered to be at, or close to, series maxima. Recruitment was above-average during the mid to late 1990s, and this has resulted high landings and stock levels. However, there is no assessment available.

The results of the RBF assessment of stock status are a SICA score of 60; and a PSA score of 85.6 for the fishery (see sections 16 .2 & 16.2.2 ). The lower SICA score reflects the assessment’s team concerns about possible recent local depletion of the stock, as illustrated by information provided by stakeholders (see Table 3).

The PSA score represents an unconditional pass; the SICA score represents a conditional pass for the fishery. The lower score was a consequence of concerns about the effect of fishing on the population structure, rather than on population size. A condition of certification has been raised to address this issue.

Both SICA and PSA analyses return a score of more than 60; the higher PSA score justifies awarding a higher overall score but not one of over 80.

Action required The stock assessment should be reviewed using more recent data to provide greater certainty about stock status. A new assessment should also investigate whether there is evidence to support anecdotal reports of localised stock depletion, and consider the implications of this at the stock level.

Cooperation between the client and relevant entities, such as Cefas, will be required to meet this condition. Evidence of action taken by the client to encourage a review of the stock assessment and investigation of local stock depletion will be required to determine initial progress with this condition.

Timescale The capacity of relevant entities to carry out research into stock status should be determined immediately.

Action to encourage research and re-assessment of the stock should be carried out within 12 months.

A re-assessment of the stock and research into localised stock depletion should be completed within 3 years.

Client Action Plan No action required under MSC TAB Directive D-024.

Consultation on condition Not Applicable.

Condition Number 2 – Information & Monitoring Performance Indicator 1.2.3 SG60 Standard Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy.

Stock abundance and fishery removals are monitored and at least one indicator is available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule. SG80 Standard Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity,

FN 82061 v4 Page 63 fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy.

Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule.

There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. SG100 Standard A comprehensive range of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available.

All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, and there is a good understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. Score Awarded 70 Rationale A comprehensive range of information has been available to support the harvest strategy (see section 5 .2 ), and there is a good understanding of the uncertainties in this information. All commercial fishery removals from the stock are continuously monitored at an appropriate level of accuracy to support the harvest control rules.

While there is no comprehensive information about the recreational angling catch, catches and landings by small commercial vessels, or levels of discarding associated with the fishery, the consequences of these and all other fishery removals are apparent in the range of information available for the stock.

The assessment team considers that, while the range of information available is comprehensive, there are some inherent uncertainties such as the absolute stock size, the inability to predict recruitment or to precisely define the scale of all removals from the stock. The recent decision by Defra to withdraw funding for some aspects of monitoring bass in the UK (e.g. no further juvenile surveys), will lead to a deterioration of the information available to support the harvest strategy.

All of the SG60 requirements are met, and the first of the SG80 requirements.

Action required Monitoring and information gathering measures should be established to enable all fishery removals (including discarding) to be estimated. Timescale The capacity of releveant entities to design and carry out appropriate monitoring and information programmes should be determined immediately.

Monitoring and information gathering measures should be agreed within 12 months and implemented within 2 years.

Client Action Plan No action required under MSC TAB Directive D-024.

Consultation on condition Not Applicable.

Condition Number 3 – Assessment of stock status Performance Indicator 1.2.4 SG60 Standard The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points.

FN 82061 v4 Page 64 The major sources of uncertainty are identified.

SG80 Standard The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points.

The assessment takes uncertainty into account. SG100 Standard The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery.

The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.

The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed.

Score Awarded 70 Rationale There is an assessment methodology for evaluating stock status relative to the reference points defined in the harvest strategy (yield per recruit and MSY), which takes account all of the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The assessments take uncertainty into account, and have been subject to peer review and published.

The assessment team notes, however that the most recent assessment of this stock included data only to 2006. Consequently the stock status at present is uncertain.

The assessment team has not penalised the fishery for the absence of clearly defined reference points under this Performance Indicator, since the harvest strategy clearly uses an appropriate proxy for reference points, and the issue has been addressed under the scoring of PI 1.1.2.

All of the SG60 requirements are met and two of the three SG80 requirements. However the first of the SG80 requirements is not met because the last stock assessment was carried out in 2008 and current status is therefore uncertain.

Action required The stock assessment should be reviewed using more recent data to provide greater certainty about stock status. A new assessment should also investigate whether there is evidence to support anecdotal reports of localised stock depletion, and consider the implications of this at the stock level.

Cooperation between the client and relevant entities, such as Cefas, will be required to meet this condition. Evidence of action taken by the client to encourage a review of the stock assessment and investigation of local stock depletion will be required to determine initial progress with this condition.

Timescale The capacity of relevant entities to carry out research into stock status should be determined immediately.

Action to encourage research and re-assessment of the stock should be carried out within 12 months.

A re-assessment of the stock and research into localised stock depletion should be completed within 3 years.

FN 82061 v4 Page 65 Client Action Plan No action required under MSC TAB Directive D-024.

Consultation on condition Not Applicable.

Condition Number 4 – Retained non target species – Outcome Performance Indicator 2.1.1. SG60 Standard Main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside the limits there are measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species.

If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. SG80 Standard Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. SG100 Standard There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits.

Target reference points are defined and retained species are at or fluctuating around their target reference points.

Score Awarded 70 Rationale A recent study carried out under the Fisheries Science Partnership (FSP) has identified the main retained species for the fishery. These are lesser spotted dogfish, plaice, small eyed rays and thornback rays (section 6 .2 .)

The status of the main retained species can be briefly summarised:-

Plaice ICES classifies the plaice stock as being at risk of reduced reproductive capacity and has advised a 50% reduction in F is needed to increase SSB to around about Bpa in 2011. The spawning stock biomass for plaice in ICES Divisions VIIf & g, which includes the UoC, has been below or around Blim since 2002.

Lesser spotted dogfish, small eyed rays and thornback rays There is no formal stock assessment for these species.

Lesser spotted dogfish are the biggest proportion of the retained catch. Catch data indicate that the species is widespread and abundant in the Bristol Channel. They are known to be discarded alive from the trawl fishery and to be likely to survive.

Two ray species, small eyed rays and thornback rays are also included in small proportions in the landed catch. ICES considers their populations to be locally stable or increasing.

Of the main retained species, the plaice give the most cause for concern, since they are assessed to be close to biologically-based limits. Though no recovery plan was in place in 2009, ICES has advised that the use of larger-mesh gear should be encouraged in instances where mixed fishery issues allow for it, in order to improve yields.

MMO landing statistics for 2005-2009 indicate an average annual landing of around 10t of plaice by otter trawlers into Appledore (it is not possible to

FN 82061 v4 Page 66 distinguish vessels fishing for bass in these data). This represents around 2% of total international catches of plaice from ICES area VII f & G and suggests that the UoC has a negligible impact on the plaice population.

The fishery meets the SG60 requirements and partially meets the one SG80 requirement.

Action required A better understanding of the plaice bycatch in the directed bass trawl fishery is required.

If necessary, the fishery should trial and adopt the use of larger mesh fishing gear and any other changes in fishing practices required to reduce retention of plaice.

The effects of any changes in fishing gear or practices should be monitored to determine their success.

Timescale Information about the quantity of plaice retained in the bass fishery should be made available within 12 months.

Any changes to fishing practices that would reduce retention of plaice should be agreed and implemented within 3 years.

Information to confirm the effectiveness of these measures should be available within 5 years.

Client Action Plan No action required under MSC TAB Directive D-024.

Consultation on condition Not Applicable.

Condition Number 5 – Discarded non target species - Outcome Performance Indicator 2.2.1 SG60 Standard Main bycatch species are likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside such limits there are mitigation measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

SG80 Standard Main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside such limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. SG100 Standard There is a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within biologically based limits. Score Awarded 75 Rationale Recent information on discarding from the fishery was gathered in 2009, when 43 species in total were recorded as discarded. Over 80% by weight of the discards were dogfish species (starry smooth-hound, lesser spotted dogfish & greater spotted dogfish). There is no formal assessment for any of these dogfish species. The assessment team have therefore used the Risk Based Framework to assess this aspect of the fishery.

The results of the RBF assessment of this species were a score of 60 for the SICA analysis and 77 for the PSA analysis.

FN 82061 v4 Page 67 The fishery attained a score of less than 80 for both the SICA and PSA analyses. The assessment team has reduced the PSA score of 77 to an MSC score of 75, and a condition has been generated accordingly.

Action required A better understanding of routine levels of discarding of all species from the fishery is required.

Timescale A system for recording levels of discarding of target & non-target species from the fishery should be established within 12 months.

Information about routine levels of discarding from the fleet should be gathered and analysed within 2 years.

Client Action Plan No action required under MSC TAB Directive D-024.

Consultation on condition Not Applicable.

Condition Number 6 – Discarded non target species – Management Performance Indicator 2.2.2 SG60 Standard There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery.

The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). SG80 Standard There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, for managing bycatch that is expected to maintain main bycatch species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or to ensure that the fishery does not hinder their recovery.

There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved.

There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.

SG100 Standard There is a strategy in place for managing and minimising bycatch.

The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Score Awarded 75 Rationale The mesh size of the trawls used in this fishery will inevitably result in bycatch of dogfish and their subsequent discarding. However, the operational nature of the fishery, which involves short tows targeted at bass aggregations, results in relatively low levels of bycatch and serves to maximise survivorship of discarded species. As a consequence, there is some objective basis for confidence that the operation of this fishery is unlikely to affect the overall status of these species. This is evidenced by the continuing capture and discarding of these species in the area after many years of fishing by the UoC.

FN 82061 v4 Page 68 The assessment team notes that measures are available to reduce discards from the fishery (for instance using the square mesh trawls used in the 2009 FSP trials), which have not been implemented to at the time of the site visit for this assessment.

The fishery meets the SG60 requirements and two of the three SG 80 requirements.

Action required If necessary, measures that will reduce levels of discarding should be identified, agreed and implemented within the client fleet.

Timescale If necessary, appropriate measures should be identified within 2 years, and evidence of their adoption should be provided within 3 years. The entire UoC fleet should be compliant with any such measures within 4 years.

Client Action Plan No action required under MSC TAB Directive D-024.

Consultation on condition Not Applicable.

Condition Number 7 – Discarded non target species - Information Performance Indicator 2.2.3 SG60 Standard Qualitative information is available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery.

Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. *

Information is adequate to support measures to manage bycatch.

SG80 Standard Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery.

Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits.*

Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species.

Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

SG100 Standard Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all bycatch and the consequences for the status of affected populations.

Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty. *

Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective.

Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species.

Score Awarded 60 Rationale Qualitative information on discarding from the fishery is available from the

FN 82061 v4 Page 69 recent FSP study, and this information would be adequate to support the design and implementation of measures to manage bycatch, if considered necessary.

During the site visit, stakeholders provided anecdotal accounts of discarding of target and non-target species from the fishery. The information provided did not enable the team to draw any conclusions about increases in risk to the main bycatch species, but served to illustrate that there is no system in place for collecting information that would enable an increase in risk to be detected.

The SG60 requirements are met for this indicator.

Action required A system for recording levels of discarding of all species from the fishery should be established, and the results of monitoring analysed.

Timescale A system for recording levels of discarding of target & non-target species from the fishery should be established within 12 months. Information about routine levels of discarding from the fleet should be gathered and analysed within 2 years.

Client Action Plan No action required under MSC TAB Directive D-024.

Consultation on condition Not Applicable.

Condition Number 8 – Ecosystems – Information Performance Indicator 2.5.3 SG60 Standard Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecosystem (e.g. trophic structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and biodiversity).

Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but have not been investigated in detail.

SG80 Standard Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem.

Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but may not have been investigated in detail.

The main functions of the Components (i.e. target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known.

Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred.

Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

SG100 Standard Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem.

Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated.

The impacts of the fishery on target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and

FN 82061 v4 Page 70 Habitats are identified and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood.

Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on the Components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred.

Information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Score Awarded 70 Rationale The unit of certification area and the range of the target species span a variety of ecosystems, including estuarine, shallow coastal and oceanic waters. The life history of the bass is dependent upon, and may also have some influence on, each of these ecosystems. The role of bass as a predator in these ecosystems is broadly understood.

The fishery may have an effect on certain non-target species, and the effect of the fishery on the key ecosystem elements (such as non-target species, ETP species and habitats) have been investigated to varying degrees, and the main functions of these components of the ecosystem are known. Generic studies of the impacts of fishing activity, and some more specific studies that relate to the characteristics of the fishery under assessment and the ecosystem in the unit of certification, enable the main consequences of the fishery’s operation to be inferred.

The team noted, however, that data collection on some of the key aspects of the fishery (such as discarding of non-target species) is patchy. It was also noted that concerns were raised about the discarding of undersized bass from trawls and that insufficient information was being gathered to enable estimation of the scale of these issues.

Action required A better understanding of routine levels of discarding of all species from the fishery is required to enable ecosystem effects to be evaluated.

Timescale A system for recording levels of discarding of target & non-target species from the fishery should be established within 12 months.

Information about routine levels of discarding from the fleet should be gathered and analysed within 2 years.

Client Action Plan No action required under MSC TAB Directive D-024.

Consultation on condition Not Applicable.

Condition Number 9 – Incentives for sustainable fishing Performance Indicator 3.1.4 SG60 Standard The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2.

SG80 Standard The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that perverse incentives do not arise. SG100 Standard The management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and explicitly considers incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure that they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. Score Awarded 70

FN 82061 v4 Page 71 Rationale The management system does not subsidise unsustainable fishing practices, and provides excellent social incentives for compliance through opportunities for participation in management, and consultation with commercial fishermen over the design and intent of management measures. The solid legal foundations of the management bodies and regulations applying to the fishery provide a further strong incentive to fish sustainably, since mechanisms exist to detect and punish non-compliance with regulations.

However, there are no penalties for discarding undersized bass, and selectivity issues have not adequately been addressed within trawl fisheries. Concerns about discard mortality of undersized bass from the trawl fishery were raised by stakeholders during the site visit. Recent studies suggest that a discard rate of 30% is typical in this fishery, with instances of up to 95% of a catch being discarded. There and no social or economic incentives to discourage this potentially unsustainable practice.

The management system for the fishery meets all of the SG60 requirements and partially satisfies the SG80 requirement.

Action required Appropriate and specific incentives for sustainable fishing that are specific to inshore bass trawling should be identified and agreed with fishery managers and other relevant entities. These objectives should be consistent with the overall objectives of the UK and European approach to management of bass stocks, and provide a framework within which the performance of the management system can be assessed.

Timescale Action to encourage the development of fishery-specific objectives should be taken within 12 months.

Proposed objectives for the fishery should be identified and agreed within 2 years and implemented by the fleet within 3 years.

Client Action Plan No action required under MSC TAB Directive D-024.

Consultation on condition Not Applicable.

Condition Number 10 – Fishery Specific objectives Performance Indicator 3.2.1 SG60 Standard Objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery’s management system.

SG80 Standard Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system.

SG100 Standard Well defined and measurable short and long term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system.

Score Awarded 70 Rationale The UoC operates within the UK’s sea bass fishery management system, which has clear long-term objectives designed to optimise yield per recruit, MSY, protect juveniles & enhance recruitment to the spawning stock. These long- term objectives are relevant at the local level and provide explicit fishery- specific objectives that have enabled the implementation of local management

FN 82061 v4 Page 72 measures such as the creation of bass nursery areas and increased MLS in parts of the UoC area that are considered under section 7 .3 .

There are no explicit short- or long-term objectives for the bass trawl fishery, which is relatively new and which gives rise to specific issues (such as the discarding of undersized fish and the potential for greatly increased fishing capacity) that are not explicitly addressed in UK’s bass management policy. These issues may in future impact upon the long-term delivery of the UK’s overall objectives for the bass fishery.

For Principle 2, strategic and specific objectives for the area are set by EU and domestic nature conservation and environmental management legislation. This legislation and its objectives are outlined in section 6 .5 of this report.

The SG 60 requirements are met for Principle 1, but in the absence of explicit short and long term objective for the fishery the SG80 requirements are not met.

Action required Appropriate and specific objectives for inshore bass trawling should be identified and agreed with fishery managers and other relevant entities. These objectives should be consistent with the overall objectives of the UK and European approach to management of bass stocks, and provide a framework within which the performance of the management system can be assessed.

Timescale Action to encourage the development of fishery-specific objectives should be taken within 12 months.

Proposed objectives for the fishery should be identified and agreed within 2 years and implemented by the fleet within 3 years.

Client Action Plan No action required under MSC TAB Directive D-024.

Consultation on condition Not Applicable.

Condition Number 11 – Research Plan Performance Indicator 3.2.4 SG60 Standard Research is undertaken, as required, to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

Research results are available to interested parties.

SG80 Standard A research plan provides the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion.

SG100 Standard A comprehensive research plan provides the management system with a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

Research plan and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available.

Score Awarded 70

FN 82061 v4 Page 73 Rationale There is no strategic research plan for the fishery. However, a lot of research is undertaken that is relevant to the UoC, both in terms of research into the target stock and into the effects of fishing activity on non-target species, ETP species and habitats. Research results are disseminated to interested parties and are also made widely and publicly available (for instance, see the recent FSP report by Catchpole (2009), which was carried out in the UoC and which is available on the Cefas website).

The research that is undertaken meets both SG60 requirements. It is disseminated to interested parties in a timely fashion. A score of 70 is therefore justified.

Action required A research plan, directed at the key issues associated with this fishery, should be drawn up and implemented. This should involve all relevant entities where possible (such as Cefas, WAG, universities and other stakeholders).

Timescale The objectives of a research plan should be set out and agreed with relevant entities within 12 months, and a formal research plan adopted by the client within 2 years.

Client Action Plan No action required under MSC TAB Directive D-024.

Consultation on condition Not Applicable.

Condition Number 12 – Management system performance Performance Indicator 3.2.5 SG60 Standard The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system and is subject to occasional internal review. SG80 Standard The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. SG100 Standard The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system and is subject to regular internal and external review. Score Awarded 70 Rationale The management regime for UK and EC fisheries is subject to internal and external review. At the EC level there is a decadal cycle of review of the Common Fisheries Policy. The next CFP review is due for completion in 2012. During the past 6 years there has been a comprehensive review of the institutional and legal arrangements for domestic fisheries management in the UK and devolved administrations. This review started in 2004 with the publication of external reviews of fishery management by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the process ended with the reforms that were implemented by the Marine & Coastal Access Act in 2009. This was a comprehensive review of all parts of the management system, but was the first such review for over a century.

While this major review of the management system should be rewarded with an appropriate score, it is important to note that review of management of the bass fishery is less comprehensive and irregular. The only regular cycle of management review takes place at the local level, through the cycle of Sea Fisheries Committee meetings. Most aspects of the review of the management system are ad-hoc. A key shortcoming is that there are no fishery-specific objectives against which to evaluate management performance.

The fishery consistently meets the SG60 requirements for occasional review of some parts of management; a higher score is justified by the recent review of the domestic management regime and upcoming CFP review, which partially meet the SG80 requirements, justifying a score of 70.

FN 82061 v4 Page 74 Action required Appropriate and specific objectives for inshore bass trawling should be identified and agreed with fishery managers and other relevant entities. These objectives should be consistent with the overall objectives of the UK and European approach to management of bass stocks, and provide a framework within which the performance of the management system can be assessed.

Timescale Action to encourage the development of fishery-specific objectives should be taken within 12 months.

Proposed objectives for the fishery should be identified and agreed within 2 years and implemented by the fleet within 3 years.

Client Action Plan No action required under MSC TAB Directive D-024.

Consultation on condition Not Applicable.

FN 82061 v4 Page 75 Table 5: Scores for the Bristol Channel Sea Bass Trawl Fishery. Scores shaded green attain the unconditional pass level. Yellow shading indicates a conditional pass. Red shading indicates a fail.

Prin- Wt Component Wt PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight in Contribution to ciple (L1) (L2) (L3) Principle Score Principle Score Either Or Either Or One 1 Outcome 0.5 1.1.1 Stock status 0.5 0.25 0.333 0.1667 70 17.50 11.67 1.1.2 Reference points 0.5 0.25 0.333 0.1667 80 20.00 13.33 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 0.333 0.1667 0.00 0.00 Management 0.5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 12.50 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 0.125 80 10.00 10.00 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 0.125 70 8.75 8.75 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 0.125 70 8.75 8.75 Two 1 Retained species 0.2 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 70 4.67 4.67 2.1.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 5.33 2.1.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 Discards 0.2 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 75 5.00 2.2.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 75 5.00 2.2.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 60 4.00 ETP species 0.2 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 2.3.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 85 5.67 2.3.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 Habitats 0.2 2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 2.4.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 2.4.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 85 5.67 Ecosystems 0.2 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 2.5.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 2.5.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 70 4.67 Three 1 Governance and 0.5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0.25 0.125 90 11.25 policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0.25 0.125 90 11.25 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.25 0.125 80 10.00 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 0.25 0.125 70 8.75 Fishery specific 0.5 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.2 0.1 60 6.00 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.2 0.1 90 9.00 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.2 0.1 90 9.00 3.2.4 Research plan 0.2 0.1 70 7.00 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 0.2 0.1 70 7.00

Overall weighted Principle-level scores Either Or Principle 1 - Target species Stock rebuilding PI not scored 77.50 Stock rebuilding PI scored N/A Principle 2 - Ecosystem 79.33 Principle 3 - Management 79.25

FN 82061 v4 Page 76 16 SCORING TABLES

Contents of this section:

16.1 Conventional Assessment The results of scoring the fishery using the conventional MSC approach are set out here.

16.2 Risk-Based Framework Assessment Tables describing the use of and results from the Risk Based Framework Assessment of Performance Indicators 1.1.1, 2.1.1, and 2.2.1 are included in this section.

FN 82061 v4 Page 77 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

16 .1 Conventional Assessment

Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.

1.1 Management Outcomes:

1.1.1 Stock Status: The stock is It is likely that the stock is above the point It is highly likely that the stock is above the There is a high degree of certainty that the at a level which maintains where recruitment would be impaired. point where recruitment would be impaired. stock is above the point where recruitment high productivity and has a would be impaired. low probability of recruitment overfishing The stock is at or fluctuating around its target There is a high degree of certainty that the reference point. stock has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years.

Scoring Comments The assessment team have used the Risk Based Framework (RBF) to assess this Performance Indicator. The procedure set out in paragraph 2.4 and Figure 3 of the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology has been used to determine this approach.

The status of the bass stock relative to an unfished population cannot be estimated. The most recent ICES assessment for the larger area (ICES VIIa, f, g) ran to 2004 and was updated to 2006. There is no more recent information to update our knowledge of bass stock trends beyond 2006.

The most recent assessment results (Pawson et al., 2007a; Kupschus et al., 2008) suggest that bass stocks in ICES Divisions a,f,g are being exploited sustainably, at a moderate e level of F and with an exploitation pattern that gives a near maximum yield per recruit, and that this has led to an increase in exploitable biomass since the early 1990s to levels considered to be at, or close to, series maxima. Recruitment was above-average during the mid to late 1990s, and this has resulted high landings and stock levels. However, there is no assessment available.

The results of the RBF assessment of stock status are a SICA score of 60; and a PSA score of 85.6 for the fishery (see sections 16 .2 & 16.2.2 ). The lower SICA score reflects the assessment’s team concerns about possible recent local depletion of the stock, as illustrated by information provided by stakeholders (see Table 3).

The PSA score represents an unconditional pass; the SICA score represents a conditional pass for the fishery. The lower score was a consequence of concerns about the effect of fishing on the population structure, rather than on population size. A condition of certification has been raised to address this issue. Score: 70 Both SICA and PSA analyses return a score of more than 60; the higher PSA score justifies awarding a higher overall score but not one of over 80.

Audit Trace References MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology version 2.

FN 82061 v4 Page 78 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

1.1.2 Reference Points: Limit Generic limit and target reference points are Reference points are appropriate for the stock Reference points are appropriate for the stock and target reference points based on justifiable and reasonable practice and can be estimated. and can be estimated.6 are appropriate for the appropriate for the species category. stock. The limit reference point is set above the level The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of relevant precautionary issues.

The target reference point is such that the stock The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. or outcome, or a higher level, and takes into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty.

For low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock.

Scoring Comments A score of 80 is awarded here because the RBF has been used for Performance Indicator 1.1.1.

The assessment team notes that there are no reference points agreed for this or any other European sea bass stock, though the bass fishery in England and Wales has been managed since 1990 in relation to Y/R and MSY considerations.

Score: 80

Audit Trace References MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology version 2.

6 This scoring guidepost duplicates the SG80 text, and was withdrawn by the MSC in September 2010 (Policy Advisory 18). Duplicate text has also been withdrawn for PIs 1.2.2, 2.5.3, 3.1.1., 3.2.2, 3.2.3. FN 82061 v4 Page 79 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding: Where Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies Where stocks are depleted, strategies are the stock is depleted, there which have a reasonable expectation of success are in place. demonstrated to be rebuilding stocks is evidence of stock are in place. continuously and there is strong evidence that rebuilding. rebuilding will be complete within the shortest practicable timeframe. Monitoring is in place to determine whether There is evidence that they are rebuilding they are effective in rebuilding the stock within stocks, or it is highly likely based on a specified timeframe. simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe.

Scoring Comments Although a score of 70 has been awarded for PI 1.1.1, the overall stock was not considered to be depleted in 2006. The low score for PI 1.1.1 arises from concerns about the potential effect of fishing on the population structure rather than from an effect on population size and reproductive capacity.

Score: N/A

Audit Trace References N/A

FN 82061 v4 Page 80 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

1.2 Harvest Strategy (management)

1.2.1 Harvest Strategy: There is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve The harvest strategy is responsive to the state The harvest strategy is responsive to the state a robust and precautionary stock management objectives reflected in the of the stock and the elements of the harvest of the stock and is designed to achieve stock harvest strategy in place target and limit reference points. strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. and limit reference points.

The harvest strategy is likely to work based on The harvest strategy may not have been fully The performance of the harvest strategy has prior experience or plausible argument. tested but monitoring is in place and evidence been fully evaluated and evidence exists to exists that it is achieving its objectives. show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.

Monitoring is in place that is expected to The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed determine whether the harvest strategy is and improved as necessary. working.

Scoring Comments

The harvest strategy for the fishery is designed to avoid growth overfishing and maximise recruitment to the adult stock by protecting bass smaller than 36cm (see section 7 .3 ). There is a robust and precautionary strategy that has been in place and monitored for 20 years and which has been demonstrated to have achieved its stock management objectives in terms of yield per recruit and MSY. The performance of the harvest strategy has been periodically reviewed and evaluated on a regular basis.

There are no target and limit reference points in terms of SSB and F for this stock. Instead, the harvest strategy is designed to achieve management objectives in terms of yield per recruit and MSY. These metrics are more appropriate to a species like sea bass where a wide variability in recruitment is related to environmental factors rather than SSB.

The assessment team has not penalised the fishery for the absence of clearly defined reference points under this Performance Indicator, since the harvest strategy clearly uses an appropriate proxy for reference points, and the issue has been addressed under the scoring of PI 1.1.2.

The team note that there are concerns about capture and discarding of undersized bass in the inshore trawl fishery. These concerns have been addressed in the scoring of Performance Indicators 1.2.3, 3.1.4, and 3.2.1.

Score: 100 All of the SG100 requirements are met by the harvest strategy.

Audit Trace References Pickett et al, 1995; Pawson et al., 2005; ICES, 2005; Pawson, 2008.

FN 82061 v4 Page 81 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

1.2.2 Harvest control rules and Generally understood harvest control rules are Well defined harvest control rules are in place Well defined harvest control rules are in place tools: There are well in place that are consistent with the harvest that are consistent with the harvest strategy and that are consistent with the harvest strategy and defined and effective strategy and which act to reduce the ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as harvest control rules in exploitation rate as limit reference points are limit reference points are approached. limit reference points are approached.7 place approached.

There is some evidence that tools used to The selection of the harvest control rules takes The design of the harvest control rules take into implement harvest control rules are appropriate into account the main uncertainties. account a wide range of uncertainties. and effective in controlling exploitation.

Available evidence indicates that the tools in Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are use are appropriate and effective in achieving effective in achieving the exploitation levels the exploitation levels required under the required under the harvest control rules. harvest control rules

Scoring Comments The harvest strategy is designed to modify exploitation patterns so that exploitation rates are sustainable. It has achieved this by using well defined and understood tools in the form of minimum legal fish sizes, mesh size controls and nursery area closures to protect juvenile bass. Both the harvest strategy and the harvest control rules and tools have been selected and designed to take account of the main uncertainties in this fishery, which are recruitment variability and the inshore small-boat nature of the much of the fishery. A lesser uncertainty is the outcome in response to management in terms of exploitation levels, which is not controlled directly (ICES, 2005).

The available evidence indicates that the package of measures introduced by the UK in 1990 has been effective in achieving appropriate exploitation patterns and levels as required by the harvest strategy, except in the case of trawl fisheries where gear selectivity is not well matched to the MLS of the target species and effort directed at bass is relatively uncontrolled. These issues have been addressed in the scoring of PIs 1.2.3, 3.1.4 and 3.2.1.

The assessment team has not penalised the fishery for the absence of clearly defined reference points under this Performance Indicator, since the harvest strategy clearly uses an appropriate proxy for reference points, and the issue has been addressed under the scoring of PI 1.1.2.

Score: 80 All of the SG80 requirements are met. Audit Trace References Section 7 .3

7 See note 6 supra. FN 82061 v4 Page 82 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

1.2.3 Information / Some relevant information related to stock Sufficient relevant information related to stock A comprehensive range of information (on monitoring: Relevant structure, stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, fleet composition stock structure, stock productivity, fleet information is collected to composition is available to support the harvest and other data is available to support the composition, stock abundance, fishery support the harvest strategy strategy. harvest strategy. removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly relevant to the current harvest strategy, is available.

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

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

Scoring Comments

A comprehensive range of information has been available to support the harvest strategy (see section 5 .2 ), and there is a good understanding of the uncertainties in this information. All commercial fishery removals from the stock are continuously monitored at an appropriate level of accuracy to support the harvest control rules.

While there is no comprehensive information about the recreational angling catch, catches and landings by small commercial vessels, or levels of discarding associated with the fishery, the consequences of these and all other fishery removals are apparent in the range of information available for the stock.

The assessment team considers that, while the range of information available is comprehensive, there are some inherent uncertainties such as the absolute stock size, the inability to predict recruitment or to precisely define the scale of all removals from the stock. The recent decision by Defra to withdraw funding for some aspects of monitoring bass in the UK (e.g. no further juvenile surveys), will lead to a deterioration of the information available to support the harvest strategy.

Score: 70 All of the SG60 requirements are met, and the first of the SG80 requirements.

Audit Trace References Section 5 .2

FN 82061 v4 Page 83 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

1.2.4 Assessment of stock The assessment estimates stock status relative The assessment is appropriate for the stock and The assessment is appropriate for the stock and status: There is an to reference points. for the harvest control rule, and is evaluating for the harvest control rule and takes into adequate assessment of the stock status relative to reference points. account the major features relevant to the stock status biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The major sources of uncertainty are identified. The assessment takes uncertainty into account. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.

The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

The stock assessment is subject to peer review. The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewed.

Scoring Comments There is an assessment methodology for evaluating stock status relative to the reference points defined in the harvest strategy (yield per recruit and MSY), which takes account all of the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. The assessments take uncertainty into account, and have been subject to peer review and published.

The assessment team notes, however that the most recent assessment of this stock included data only to 2006. Consequently the stock status at present is uncertain.

The assessment team has not penalised the fishery for the absence of clearly defined reference points under this Performance Indicator, since the harvest strategy clearly uses an appropriate proxy for reference points, and the issue has been addressed under the scoring of PI 1.1.2.

Score: 70 All of the SG60 requirements are met and two of the three SG80 requirements. However the first of the SG80 requirements is not met because the last stock assessment was carried out in 2008 and current status is therefore uncertain.

Audit Trace References Pickett et al, 1995;Pawson et al., 2005; Pawson et al., 2007b; section

FN 82061 v4 Page 84 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends

2.1 Retained non-target species

2.1.1 Status: The fishery does Main retained species are likely to be within Main retained species are highly likely to be There is a high degree of certainty that retained not pose a risk of serious biologically based limits or if outside the limits within biologically based limits, or if outside species are within biologically based limits. or irreversible harm to the there are measures in place that are expected to the limits there is a partial strategy of retained species and does ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery demonstrably effective management measures not hinder recovery of and rebuilding of the depleted species. in place such that the fishery does not hinder depleted retained species. recovery and rebuilding. If the status is poorly known there are measures Target reference points are defined and or practices in place that are expected to result retained species are at or fluctuating around in the fishery not causing the retained species their target reference points. to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Scoring Comments

A recent study carried out under the Fisheries Science Partnership (FSP) has identified the main retained species for the fishery. These are lesser spotted dogfish, plaice, small eyed rays and thornback rays (section 6 .2 .)

The status of the main retained species can be briefly summarised:-

Plaice ICES classifies the plaice stock as being at risk of reduced reproductive capacity and has advised a 50% reduction in F is needed to increase SSB to around about B pa in 2011. The spawning stock biomass for plaice in ICES Divisions VIIf & g, which includes the UoC, has been below or around Blim since 2002.

Lesser spotted dogfish, small eyed rays and thornback rays There is no formal stock assessment for these species.

Lesser spotted dogfish are the biggest proportion of the retained catch. Catch data indicate that the species is widespread and abundant in the Bristol Channel. They are known to be discarded alive from the trawl fishery and to be likely to survive.

Two ray species, small eyed rays and thornback rays are also included in small proportions in the landed catch. ICES considers their populations to be locally stable or increasing.

Of the main retained species, the plaice give the most cause for concern, since they are assessed to be close to biologically-based limits. Though no recovery plan was in place in 2009, ICES has advised that the use of larger-mesh gear should be encouraged in instances where mixed fishery issues allow for it, in order to improve yields. FN 82061 v4 Page 85 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

MMO landing statistics for 2005-2009 indicate an average annual landing of around 10t of plaice by otter trawlers into Appledore (it is not possible to distinguish vessels fishing for bass in these data). This represents around 2% of total international catches of plaice from ICES area VII f & G and suggests that the UoC has a negligible impact on the plaice population.

Score: 70 The fishery meets the SG60 requirements and partially meets the one SG80 requirement. Audit Trace References Section 6 .2 , ICES, 2009

FN 82061 v4 Page 86 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.1.2 Management strategy: There are measures in place, if necessary, that There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary There is a strategy in place for managing There is a strategy in place are expected to maintain the main retained that is expected to maintain the main retained retained species. for managing retained species at levels which are highly likely to be species at levels which are highly likely to be species that is designed to within biologically based limits, or to ensure within biologically based limits, or to ensure ensure the fishery does not the fishery does not hinder their recovery and the fishery does not hinder their recovery and pose a risk of serious or rebuilding. rebuilding. irreversible harm to retained species. The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence The strategy is mainly based on information based on plausible argument (e.g., general that the partial strategy will work, based on directly about the fishery and/or species experience, theory or comparison with similar some information directly about the fishery involved, and testing supports high confidence fisheries/species). and/or species involved. that the strategy will work.

There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring.

There is some evidence that the partial strategy There is some evidence that the strategy is is being implemented successfully. achieving its overall objective.

Scoring Comments No stock recovery management plan for plaice was in place in 2009, when ICES advised that increases in the mesh size of the gears used to take plaice should result in fewer discards and in increased yield from the fishery as a whole. Currently, the management strategy for plaice is based on a combination of catch controls (TAC) and days-at-sea, only the former of which applies to the vessels in the Unit of Certification. For all non-target species, the practical operation of the fleet when targeting bass is likely to minimise the quantity of non-target species caught. The fleet targets the areas where bass are known to aggregate, and tow for short periods of time, and use trawls that are specifically designed to catch bass rather than other species.

The 2009 FSP trials with square meshes to reduce the number of undersized bass caught in the UoC demonstrated that bycatch and discards of other species would also be reduced. However the use of this gear had not been adopted by the fleet at the time of the site visit for this assessment.

The catch statistics for the area provide evidence that the restrictions on retaining the main non-target species are being implemented successfully and, coupled with the fishing practices within the UoC, there is an objective basis for confidence that the fishery is unlikely to hinder the recovery and rebuilding of the retained species considered to be at most risk (plaice).

Score: 80 The SG60 and SG80 requirements are met by the fishery. Audit Trace References Section 6.2.2 ; Catchpole, 2009.

FN 82061 v4 Page 87 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.1.3 Information / monitoring: Qualitative information is available on the Qualitative information and some quantitative Accurate and verifiable information is available Information on the nature amount of main retained species taken by the information are available on the amount of on the catch of all retained species and the and extent of retained fishery. main retained species taken by the fishery. consequences for the status of affected species is adequate to populations. determine the risk posed Information is adequate to qualitatively assess Information is sufficient to estimate outcome Information is sufficient to quantitatively by the fishery and the outcome status with respect to biologically status with respect to biologically based estimate outcome status with a high degree of effectiveness of the based limits. * limits.* certainty. * strategy to manage retained species. Information is adequate to support measures to Information is adequate to support a partial Information is adequate to support a manage main retained species. strategy to manage main retained species. comprehensive strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Sufficient data continue to be collected to Monitoring of retained species is conducted in detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the all retained species. operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). * These scoring issues need not be scored when RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1

Scoring Comments

Information on the nature and quantity of retained species caught in the fishery is collected routinely by the Marine Management Organisation through formal statutory processes (logsheets describing fishing activity of vessels and sales records required by the RBS regulations). This information is used in conjunction with fishery-independent beam trawl survey data to provide estimates of stock status for these species. For plaice, the landings data are used in conjunction with trawl survey data by ICES to provide quantitative management advice. For other species, estimates of status are qualitative.

Score: 80 For plaice, the fishery meets all of the SG80 requirements and some of the SG100 requirements; however, for the other retained species, estimates of stock status are qualitative, which prevents a score of more than 80 from being awarded.

Audit Trace References Section 6.2.3 , section 7.3.2.1

FN 82061 v4 Page 88 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.2 Discarded species (also known as “bycatch” or “discards”)

2.2.1 Status The fishery does not Main bycatch species are likely to be within Main bycatch species are highly likely to be There is a high degree of certainty that bycatch pose a risk of serious or biologically based limits, or if outside such within biologically based limits or if outside species are within biologically based limits. irreversible harm to the limits there are mitigation measures in place such limits there is a partial strategy of bycatch species or species that are expected to ensure that the fishery does demonstrably effective mitigation measures in groups and does not hinder not hinder recovery and rebuilding. place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery of depleted recovery and rebuilding. bycatch species or species If the status is poorly known there are measures groups. or practices in place that are expected result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

Scoring Comments

Recent information on discarding from the fishery was gathered in 2009, when 43 species in total were recorded as discarded. Over 80% by weight of the discards were dogfish species (starry smooth-hound, lesser spotted dogfish & greater spotted dogfish). There is no formal assessment for any of these dogfish species. The assessment team have therefore used the Risk Based Framework to assess this aspect of the fishery.

The results of the RBF assessment of this species were a score of 60 for the SICA analysis and 75 for the PSA analysis.

Score: 75 The fishery attained a score of less than 80 for both the SICA and PSA analyses. The three bycatch species returned PSA scores of 77, 84 and 81. Applying paragraph 4.4.2 (c) of the FAM results in a score of 75. A condition has been generated in response to this. Audit Trace References MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology v2.

FN 82061 v4 Page 89 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.2.2 Management strategy: There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, There is a strategy in place for managing and There is a strategy in place which are expected to maintain main bycatch for managing bycatch that is expected to minimising bycatch. for managing bycatch that species at levels which are highly likely to be maintain main bycatch species at levels which is designed to ensure the within biologically based limits or to ensure are highly likely to be within biologically fishery does not pose a risk that the fishery does not hinder their recovery. based limits or to ensure that the fishery does of serious or irreversible not hinder their recovery. harm to bycatch populations. The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence The strategy is mainly based on information based on plausible argument (e.g general that the partial strategy will work, based on directly about the fishery and/or species experience, theory or comparison with similar some information directly about the fishery involved, and testing supports high confidence fisheries/species). and/or the species involved. that the strategy will work.

There is some evidence that the partial strategy There is clear evidence that the strategy is is being implemented successfully. being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Scoring Comments

The mesh size of the trawls used in this fishery will inevitably result in bycatch of dogfish and their subsequent discarding. However, the operational nature of the fishery, which involves short tows targeted at bass aggregations, results in relatively low levels of bycatch and serves to maximise survivorship of discarded species. As a consequence, there is some objective basis for confidence that the operation of this fishery is unlikely to affect the overall status of these species. This is evidenced by the continuing capture and discarding of these species in the area after many years of fishing by the UoC.

The assessment team notes that measures are available to reduce discards from the fishery (for instance using the square mesh trawls used in the 2009 FSP trials), which have not been implemented to at the time of the site visit for this assessment.

Score: 75 The fishery meets the SG60 requirements and two of the three SG 80 requirements. Audit Trace References Interviews I3, I4, I14; Section 6 .3 of this report; Catchpole, 2009.

FN 82061 v4 Page 90 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.2.3 Information / monitoring Qualitative information is available on the Qualitative information and some quantitative Accurate and verifiable information is available Information on the nature amount of main bycatch species affected by the information are available on the amount of on the amount of all bycatch and the and amount of bycatch is fishery. main bycatch species affected by the fishery. consequences for the status of affected adequate to determine the populations. risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the Information is adequate to broadly understand Information is sufficient to estimate outcome Information is sufficient to quantitatively strategy to manage outcome status with respect to biologically status with respect to biologically based estimate outcome status with respect to bycatch. based limits. * limits.* biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty. *

Information is adequate to support measures to Information is adequate to support a partial Information is adequate to support a manage bycatch. strategy to manage main bycatch species. comprehensive strategy to manage bycatch, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objective.

Sufficient data continue to be collected to Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in detect any increase in risk to main bycatch sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome all bycatch species. indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy).

* These scoring issues need not be scored when RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1

Scoring Comments

Qualitative information on discarding from the fishery is available from the recent FSP study, and this information would be adequate to support the design and implementation of measures to manage bycatch, if considered necessary.

During the site visit, stakeholders provided anecdotal accounts of discarding of target and non-target species from the fishery. The information provided did not enable the team to draw any conclusions about increases in risk to the main bycatch species, but served to illustrate that there is no system in place for collecting information that would enable an increase in risk to be detected.

Score: 60 The SG60 requirements are met for this indicator.

Audit Trace References Interviews: I14, I15; section 6 .3 of this report; Catchpole, 2009.

FN 82061 v4 Page 91 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species

2.3.1 Status: The fishery meets Known effects of the fishery are likely to be The effects of the fishery are known and are There is a high degree of certainty that the national and international within limits of national and international highly likely to be within limits of national and effects of the fishery are within limits of requirements for protection requirements for protection of ETP species. international requirements for protection of national and international requirements for of ETP species. ETP species. protection of ETP species.

The fishery does not pose a Known direct effects are unlikely to create Direct effects are highly unlikely to create There is a high degree of confidence that there risk of serious or unacceptable impacts to ETP species. unacceptable impacts to ETP species. are no significant detrimental effects (direct irreversible harm to ETP and indirect) of the fishery on ETP species. species and does not hinder recovery of ETP Indirect effects have been considered and are species. thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts.

Scoring Comments

The ETP species that may be encountered by the fishery fall into two categories. Some species (such as basking sharks and all cetaceans) enjoy strict protection from any harm; while other species (such as sandy ray, Leucoraja circularis and plaice) are included in Biodiversity Action Plan lists and do not, strictly speaking, meet the MSC definition of ETP species..

There is no evidence of interaction between the fishery and any species that is strictly protected. The fishery does interact with some of the species that are listed in Biodiversity Action Plans, notably ray species and plaice. However, the evidence gathered from monitoring of discards and landings from the fishery provides a high degree of certainty that these interactions are taking place within the limits imposed by national and international requirements for protection of these species. It is therefore, highly unlikely that the direct or indirect effects of the fishery will create unacceptable impacts.

Score: 90 The fishery meets all of the SG80 requirements and also the first of the SG100 requirements.

Audit Trace References Section 6 .4 of this report.

FN 82061 v4 Page 92 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.3.2 Management strategy There are measures in place that minimise There is a strategy in place for managing the There is a comprehensive strategy in place for The fishery has in place mortality, and are expected to be highly likely fishery’s impact on ETP species, including managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, precautionary management to achieve national and international measures to minimise mortality, that is including measures to minimise mortality, that strategies designed to: requirements for the protection of ETP species. designed to be highly likely to achieve national is designed to achieve above national and - meet national and and international requirements for the international requirements for the protection of international requirements; protection of ETP species. ETP species. - ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious The measures are considered likely to work, There is an objective basis for confidence that The strategy is mainly based on information or irreversible harm to based on plausible argument (eg general the strategy will work, based on some directly about the fishery and/or species ETP species; experience, theory or comparison with similar information directly about the fishery and/or involved, and a quantitative analysis supports - ensure the fishery does fisheries/species). the species involved. high confidence that the strategy will work. not hinder recovery of ETP species; and There is evidence that the strategy is being There is clear evidence that the strategy is - minimise mortality of implemented successfully. being implemented successfully, and intended ETP species. changes are occurring. There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Scoring Comments

The combination of the fishing method, legislation, and practices within the fishery are effective at minimising interactions with the most strictly protected marine species (basking sharks, cetaceans and turtles). No reports of catches of these species have been made.

By contrast, the fishery is known to catch some of the species that are listed in Biodiversity Action Plans, and the levels of capture are quantitatively estimated. The BAPs call for management of capture of these species to be compatible with ICES advice, and there is evidence that the TAC and quota allocations for these species are determined in line with this advice. Quantitative information is gathered to ensure that the management strategy for these species is being implemented, and scientific information is examined by ICES to form the basis of subsequent management advice. The evidence of the strategy being implemented successfully for these species is provided by compliance with TAC and quota restrictions by the fishing fleet. Nevertheless, concerns remain in the conservation sector about the current status and rate of recovery of the BAP species.

The operation of the fishery meets the national and international requirements, based upon a qualitative analysis of information about the fishery and the species concerned. While there is clear evidence from ongoing stock reports and monitoring of the fishery that this strategy is being successfully implemented, concerns remain in the conservation sector about the status of ETP species that may be affected by the fishery.

Score: 85 The operation of the fishery meets all of the SG80 requirements, and its quantitative basis provides a high degree of confidence that it will work, which partially meets the SG100 requirements.

Audit Trace References Section 6 .4 ; Interview I6; UK BAP, 2010.

FN 82061 v4 Page 93 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.3.3 Information / monitoring Information is adequate to broadly understand Information is sufficient to determine whether Information is sufficient to quantitatively Relevant information is the impact of the fishery on ETP species. the fishery may be a threat to protection and estimate outcome status with a high degree of collected to support the recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to certainty. management of fishery measure trends and support a full strategy to impacts on ETP species, manage impacts. including: - information for the Information is adequate to support measures to Sufficient data are available to allow fishery Information is adequate to support a development of the manage the impacts on ETP species related mortality and the impact of fishing to comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, management strategy; be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, - information to assess the and evaluate with a high degree of certainty effectiveness of the whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. management strategy; and - information to determine Information is sufficient to qualitatively Accurate and verifiable information is available the outcome status of ETP estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP on the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and species. species. injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species

Scoring Comments

There are no reports of any adverse interactions between the fishery and the ETP species that are strictly protected (such as basking sharks and cetaceans).

Information on landings and discards of fish provides evidence that enables the effect of this fishery on other ETP species, such as species listed in Biodiversity Action Plans, to be determined. This information has been used to develop the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, and forms the basis for establishing management measures under fisheries legislation. The BAPs call for more information to be gathered about these species, and in particular for more information about post-capture mortality of discarded individuals.

Score: 80 The information available meets all of the SG80 requirements.

Audit Trace References Section 6 .4

FN 82061 v4 Page 94 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.4 Strategies have been developed within the fisheries management system to address and restrain any significant negative impacts of the fishery on habitats

2.4.1 Status The fishery does not The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat There is evidence that the fishery is highly cause serious or structure and function to a point where there structure and function to a point where there unlikely to reduce habitat structure and irreversible harm to habitat would be serious or irreversible harm. would be serious or irreversible harm. function to a point where there would be structure, considered on a serious or irreversible harm. regional or bioregional basis, and function.

Scoring Comments

The fishery is largely carried out on mobile sand banks that are unlikely to suffer lasting damage from the relatively light trawl gear used by the boats in this fishery. These habitats are widely distributed within and beyond the unit of certification area. Part of the unit of certification area has been designated a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) because the subtidal sandbanks within it are of European importance. Generic studies suggest that the fishery is highly unlikely to damage these habitats, but there is no direct evidence of this from studies within the site. Nevertheless, the JNCC report that there are over 700,000 hectares of subtidal sandbanks in the UK, most of which lies beyond the unit of certification.

The assessment team concludes that, on the basis of information about the extent and quality of habitats likely to be impacted by the fishery relative to the total UK resource, and in view of research suggesting that this habitat is unlikely to suffer significant long-term effects from this type of fishery, it is highly unlikely that it is reducing structure and function to a point where it would cause serious or irreversible harm. We note, however, that there is no site-specific evidence available about such impacts for the unit of certification.

Score: 80 All of the SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. Audit Trace References Jennings & Kaiser, 1999; section 6 .5

FN 82061 v4 Page 95 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.4.2 Management strategy There are measures in place, if necessary, that There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, There is a strategy in place for managing the There is a strategy in place are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome that is expected to achieve the Habitat impact of the fishery on habitat types. that is designed to ensure 80 level of performance. Outcome 80 level of performance or above. the fishery does not pose a The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence The strategy is mainly based on information risk of serious or based on plausible argument (e.g general that the partial strategy will work, based on directly about the fishery and/or habitats irreversible harm to habitat experience, theory or comparison with similar some information directly about the fishery involved, and testing supports high confidence types. fisheries/habitats). and/or habitats involved. that the strategy will work.

There is some evidence that the partial strategy There is clear evidence that the strategy is is being implemented successfully. being implemented successfully, and intended changes are occurring. There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Scoring Comments The management strategy for marine habitat management is provided principally by nature conservation legislation. The EC Habitats Directive and Birds Directive set a European framework for protecting important wildlife habitats, including marine areas. The UK’s Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009 has provided similar foundations at the domestic level. Marine areas within the UoC are already protected as Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Marine Conservation Zones. These nature conservation designations imposed duties on fishery managers and can constrain damaging or potentially damaging fishing activities where appropriate.

The implementation of the Marine & Coastal Access Act and the EC Marine Strategy Framework Directive will add to the level of protection by establishing a UK network of MPAs by 2012 and “Good Environmental Status” in European seas.

The conditions of protected habitats throughout the UK are monitored by the statutory nature conservation agencies on an ongoing basis, with formal reporting every 6 years. The most recent (2006) report shows that the national status of the subtidal sandbank habitats is favourable.

There is a well established habitat conservation strategy in place that is supported by domestic and EC legislation. This strategy is based upon information about the habitats involved. The designation of wildlife sites and the management measures associated with them provide evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. The objective reporting of habitat status at the site and national level provides confidence that this strategy is working.

Score: 90 All of the SG80 requirements are met and the first and third of the SG100 requirements are met. Audit Trace References JNCC, 2010a, b, c; Welsh Assembly Government 2010; section 6 .5 .

FN 82061 v4 Page 96 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.4.3 Information / monitoring There is a basic understanding of the types and The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all The distribution of habitat types is known over Information is adequate to distribution of main habitats in the area of the main habitat types in the fishery area are their range, with particular attention to the determine the risk posed to fishery. known at a level of detail relevant to the scale occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. habitat types by the fishery and intensity of the fishery. and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts Information is adequate to broadly understand Sufficient data are available to allow the nature Changes in habitat distributions over time are on habitat types. the main impacts of gear use on the main of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to measured. habitats, including spatial extent of interaction. be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

Sufficient data continue to be collected to The physical impacts of the gear on the habitat detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due types have been quantified fully. to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Scoring Comments The information available about habitat types is good. Seabed surveys of the Unit of Certification area and the seas around the rest of the UK enable the nature and extent of habitat types to be determined. The effects of fishing and other activities on the key habitat types in the area are known, and reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear is available from fisheries regulators. Ongoing monitoring of the habitats in the area is carried out by the nature conservation agencies.

Score: 85 All of the SG60 and SG80 requirements are met and the first of the SG100 requirements is also met. Audit Trace References Elliott et al, 1998; Gubbay & Knapman, 1999; JNCC, 2010, Section 6 .5

FN 82061 v4 Page 97 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.5 Ecosystem

2.5.1 Status The fishery does not The fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key There is evidence that the fishery is highly cause serious or elements underlying ecosystem structure and elements underlying ecosystem structure and unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying irreversible harm to the function to a point where there would be a function to a point where there would be a ecosystem structure and function to a point key elements of ecosystem serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. where there would be a serious or irreversible structure and function. harm.

Scoring Comments

Sea bass are a predatory species and may be an important predator in inshore nursery areas. The relatively low abundance of sea bass relative to other predators (such as cod or mackerel) suggests that it is unlikely to exert significant pressure on lower tropic levels in the wider Celtic Sea. The bass population has fluctuated considerably over the last 40 years in response to increased recruitment and then increased exploitation. The effect of the sea bass fishery on the overall ecosystem is therefore likely to be impossible to detect and, based upon reasonable assessment of available evidence, seems highly unlikely to have a serious or irreversible effect on the key elements of the underlying ecosystem.

Stronger evidence to confirm this conclusion could be provided by modelling interactions in the ecosystem.

Score: 90 The fishery meets all of the SG80 requirements and also largely meets S100 requirements.

Audit Trace References Pawson et al., 1987; Pickett and Pawson, 1994; Pawson et al., 2007b Section 6 .6

FN 82061 v4 Page 98 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.5.2 Management strategy There are measures in place, if necessary, that There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, There is a strategy that consists of a plan, There are measures in take into account potential impacts of the that takes into account available information containing measures to address all main place to ensure the fishery fishery on key elements of the ecosystem. and is expected to restrain impacts of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, and at does not pose a risk of fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the least some of these measures are in place. The serious or irreversible Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. plan and measures are based on well- harm to ecosystem understood functional relationships between structure and function. the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.

The measures are considered likely to work, The partial strategy is considered likely to This plan provides for development of a full based on plausible argument (eg, general work, based on plausible argument (eg, general strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem experience, theory or comparison with similar experience, theory or comparison with similar to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or fisheries/ ecosystems). fisheries/ ecosystems). irreversible harm.

There is some evidence that the measures The measures are considered likely to work comprising the partial strategy are being based on prior experience, plausible argument implemented successfully. or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved.

There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.

Scoring Comments

There presently appears to be no need for a fishery of this scale, taking place within the highly variable context outlined above, to have an ecosystem management strategy in place. Providing that the elements of the harvest control strategy are adhered to, the long-term role of bass as a predator in the unit of certification ecosystem and wider Celtic Sea ecosystem is unlikely to be seriously or irreversibly altered. The available evidence is that these management measures are effective and are being implemented successfully.

Score: 80 All of the SG60 and SG80 requirements are met.

Audit Trace References Pawson et al., 1987; Pickett and Pawson, 1994; Pawson et al., 2007b Section 6 .6

FN 82061 v4 Page 99 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

2.5.3 Information / monitoring Information is adequate to identify the key Information is adequate to broadly understand Information is adequate to broadly understand There is adequate elements of the ecosystem (e.g. trophic the key elements of the ecosystem. the key elements of the ecosystem.8 knowledge of the impacts structure and function, community of the fishery on the composition, productivity pattern and ecosystem. biodiversity).

Main impacts of the fishery on these key Main impacts of the fishery on these key Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but have not been existing information, but may not have been existing information, and have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. investigated.

The main functions of the Components (i.e. The impacts of the fishery on target, Bycatch, target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Retained and ETP species and Habitats are Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. identified and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood.

Sufficient information is available on the Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the fishery on these Components to impacts of the fishery on the Components and allow some of the main consequences for the elements to allow the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred.

Sufficient data continue to be collected to Information is sufficient to support the detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to development of strategies to manage ecosystem changes in the outcome indicator scores or the impacts. operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures).

Scoring Comments

The unit of certification area and the range of the target species span a variety of ecosystems, including estuarine, shallow coastal and oceanic waters. The life history of the bass is dependent upon, and may also have some influence on, each of these ecosystems. The role of bass as a predator in these ecosystems is broadly understood.

The fishery may have an effect on certain non-target species, and the effect of the fishery on the key ecosystem elements (such as non-target species, ETP species and habitats) have been investigated to varying degrees, and the main functions of these components of the ecosystem are known. Generic studies of the impacts of fishing activity, and some more specific studies that relate to the characteristics of the fishery under assessment and the ecosystem in the unit of certification, enable the main consequences of the fishery’s operation to be inferred.

8 See note 6 supra. FN 82061 v4 Page 100 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

The team noted, however, that data collection on some of the key aspects of the fishery (such as discarding of non-target species) is patchy. It was also noted that concerns were raised about the discarding of undersized bass from trawls and that insufficient information was being gathered to enable estimation of the scale of these issues.

Score: 70 The fishery meets all of the SG60 requirements for ecosystems and the first four of the SG80 requirements. The absence of continuous recording of key aspects of the potential impacts of the fishery justifies a score of 70.

Audit Trace References Pawson et al., 1987; Pickett and Pawson, 1994; Pawson et al., 2007b Sections 6 .2 , 6 .3 , 6 .4 , 6 .5 6 .6

FN 82061 v4 Page 101 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable

3.1 Governance and Policy

3.1.1 Legal and/or customary The management system is generally consistent The management system is generally consistent The management system is generally consistent framework with local, national or international laws or with local, national or international laws or with local, national or international laws or The management system standards that are aimed at achieving standards that are aimed at achieving standards that are aimed at achieving exists within an sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC appropriate and effective Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. 9 Principles 1 and 2.10 legal and/or customary framework which ensures The management system incorporates or is The management system incorporates or is The management system incorporates or is that it: subject by law to a mechanism for the subject by law to a transparent mechanism for subject by law to a transparent mechanism for - Is capable of delivering resolution of legal disputes arising within the the resolution of legal disputes which is the resolution of legal disputes that is sustainable fisheries in system. considered to be effective in dealing with most appropriate to the context of the fishery and has accordance with MSC issues and that is appropriate to the context of been tested and proven to be effective. Principles 1 and 2; the fishery. - Observes the legal rights created explicitly or Although the management authority or fishery The management system or fishery is The management system or fishery acts established by custom of may be subject to continuing court challenges, attempting to comply in a timely fashion with proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly people dependent on it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of binding judicial decisions arising from any implements binding judicial decisions arising fishing for food or the law by repeatedly violating the same law or legal challenges. from legal challenges. livelihood; and regulation necessary for the sustainability for - Incorporates an the fishery. appropriate dispute resolution framework. The management system has a mechanism to The management system has a mechanism to The management system has a mechanism to generally respect the legal rights created observe the legal rights created explicitly or formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people established by custom of people dependent on explicitly or established by custom on people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a fishing for food or livelihood in a manner dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in manner consistent with the objectives of MSC consistent with the objectives of MSC a manner consistent with the objectives of Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2.

9 See note 6 supra. 10 See note 6 supra. FN 82061 v4 Page 102 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

Scoring Comments

There is a well established management framework in place for the fishery, comprising institutions and legislation that operate at the European, national and local level to deliver a fisheries management regime that is designed to conserve stocks and protect the marine environment through a range of temporal, spatial and technical constraints on fishing activity. This system is described in detail in section 7 .2 of this report.

The management regime provides opportunities for stakeholder involvement in management of resources, through consultation on any new national measures and direct participation in management through the Sea Fisheries Committees (and proposed new IFCAs) at the local level. Because the sea bass fishery is not managed by TAC, there are no catch allocations and there is thus no discrimination of fishing opportunities between fleets, including recreational anglers. The management measures in force reflect this lack of discrimination; both commercial fishermen and recreational anglers have equal access to the stock. This approach was designed to ensure that management measures and mechanisms observed the rights and interests of people dependent on bass for food, livelihood or recreation.

The management system is founded on a clear set of legal rules that establish the statutory powers of fishery managers, and enable the creation of regulations have been tested in the Courts and proven to be effective. The level of compliance with the management system is acknowledged to have improved since the introduction of the “Registered Buyers and Sellers Regulations” in 2005, which required all trade in commercial fish to be formally recorded.

Score: 90 This legal and customary framework meets all of the SG80 requirements and the first two of the SG100 requirements, justifying a score of 90.

Audit Trace References

Sections 7 .2 , 7 .3 , 7.3.2.1 Interviews I8, I9, I10, I11, I12, I13 Pawson et al 2005, Pawson et al 2007b; Symes & Phillipson, 1998.

FN 82061 v4 Page 103 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

3.1.2 Consultation, roles and Organisations and individuals involved in the Organisations and individuals involved in the Organisations and individuals involved in the responsibilities management process have been identified. management process have been identified. management process have been identified. The management system Functions, roles and responsibilities are Functions, roles and responsibilities are Functions, roles and responsibilities are has effective consultation generally understood. explicitly defined and well understood for key explicitly defined and well understood for all processes that are open to areas of responsibility and interaction. areas of responsibility and interaction. interested and affected parties. The management system includes consultation The management system includes consultation The management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from processes that regularly seek and accept processes that regularly seek and accept The roles and the main affected parties, including local relevant information, including local relevant information, including local responsibilities of knowledge, to inform the management system. knowledge. The management system knowledge. The management system organisations and demonstrates consideration of the information demonstrates consideration of the information individuals who are obtained. and explains how it is used or not used. involved in the management process are The consultation process provides opportunity The consultation process provides opportunity clear and understood by all for all interested and affected parties to be and encouragement for all interested and relevant parties. involved. affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

Scoring Comments

The functions, roles and responsibilities of all organisations involved in the management of the fishery are explicitly defined by legislation and are well understood by other institutions and stakeholders. These organisations are required in most instances to consult with stakeholders before introducing new measures, and often provide the opportunity and encouragement for stakeholders to participate in the design of new management measures (such as the review of the MLS for bass in 2006).

Unlike fisheries that are managed under a TAC system, the bass management regime does not require or regularly seek stakeholder views on changes to management. However, the management regime for the bass fishery is subject to continuous scrutiny from stakeholders and scientists alike and, as the review of the MLS in 2006 showed, this system seeks and accepts all relevant information and explains how it is used.

Score: 90 The fishery meets all of the SG80 requirements and all of the SG100 requirements. The assessment team felt the full score of 100 could not be warranted because stakeholder engagement is not facilitated at all levels of the management regime.

Audit Trace References Section 7 .2

FN 82061 v4 Page 104 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

3.1.3 Long term objectives Long-term objectives to guide decision- Clear long-term objectives that guide decision- Clear long-term objectives that guide decision- The management policy making, consistent with MSC Principles and making, consistent with MSC Principles and making, consistent with MSC Principles and has clear long-term Criteria and the precautionary approach, are Criteria and the precautionary approach, are Criteria and the precautionary approach, are objectives to guide implicit within management policy. explicit within management policy. explicit within and required by management decision-making that are policy. consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach.

Scoring Comments

The UK management policy for exploitation of sea bass continues to pursue long-term objectives for optimising MSY and yield per recruit, and is aimed at maximising protection for juveniles and enhancing recruitment to the spawning stock. This is necessarily a precautionary approach, given the strong environmental influence on spawning success / recruitment, and the diverse nature of the fishery taking sea bass. These objectives were developed by the UK Government and have now been adopted in the main at EU level. Decision making at national and local level is consistent with the objective set out in this management policy.

Score: 80 All of the SG80 requirements are met.

Audit Trace References Section 7.3.4

FN 82061 v4 Page 105 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable The management system provides for The management system provides for The management system provides for fishing incentives that are consistent with achieving incentives that are consistent with achieving incentives that are consistent with achieving the The management system the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and provides economic and and 2. and 2, and seeks to ensure that negative 2, and explicitly considers incentives in a social incentives for incentives do not arise. regular review of management policy or sustainable fishing and procedures to ensure that they do not contribute does not operate with to unsustainable fishing practices. subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing.

Scoring Comments

The management system does not subsidise unsustainable fishing practices, and provides excellent social incentives for compliance through opportunities for participation in management, and consultation with commercial fishermen over the design and intent of management measures. The solid legal foundations of the management bodies and regulations applying to the fishery provide a further strong incentive to fish sustainably, since mechanisms exist to detect and punish non-compliance with regulations.

However, there are no penalties for discarding undersized bass, and selectivity issues have not adequately been addressed within trawl fisheries. Concerns about discard mortality of undersized bass from the trawl fishery were raised by stakeholders during the site visit. Recent studies suggest that a discard rate of 30% is typical in this fishery, with instances of up to 95% of a catch being discarded. There and no social or economic incentives to discourage this potentially unsustainable practice.

Score: 70 The management system for the fishery meets all of the SG60 requirements and partially satisfies the SG80 requirement.

Audit Trace References Section 7.3.5 ; Catchpole, 2009

FN 82061 v4 Page 106 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

3.2 Fishery- specific management system

3.2.1 Fishery- specific Objectives, which are broadly consistent with Short and long term objectives, which are Well defined and measurable short and long objectives achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s consistent with achieving the outcomes term objectives, which are demonstrably The fishery has clear, Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are consistent with achieving the outcomes specific objectives fishery’s management system. explicit within the fishery’s management expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are designed to achieve the system. explicit within the fishery’s management outcomes expressed by system. MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

Scoring Comments

The UoC operates within the UK’s sea bass fishery management system, which has clear long-term objectives designed to optimise yield per recruit, MSY, protect juveniles & enhance recruitment to the spawning stock. These long-term objectives are relevant at the local level and provide explicit fishery-specific objectives that have enabled the implementation of local management measures such as the creation of bass nursery areas and increased MLS in parts of the UoC area that are considered under section 7 .3 .

There are no explicit short- or long-term objectives for the bass trawl fishery, which is relatively new and which gives rise to specific issues (such as the discarding of undersized fish and the potential for greatly increased fishing capacity) that are not explicitly addressed in UK’s bass management policy. These issues may in future impact upon the long-term delivery of the UK’s overall objectives for the bass fishery.

For Principle 2, strategic and specific objectives for the area are set by EU and domestic nature conservation and environmental management legislation. This legislation and its objectives are outlined in section 6 .5 of this report.

Score: 60 The SG 60 requirements are met for Principle 1, but in the absence of explicit short and long term objective for the fishery the SG80 requirements are not met.

Audit Trace References Sections 6 .5 , 7.4.1

FN 82061 v4 Page 107 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

3.2.2 Decision-making There are informal decision-making processes There are established decision-making There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve processes that result in measures and strategies processes that result in measures and strategies The fishery-specific the fishery-specific objectives. to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. 11 management system includes effective decision- Decision-making processes respond to serious Decision-making processes respond to serious Decision-making processes respond to all making processes that issues identified in relevant research, and other important issues identified in issues identified in relevant research, result in measures and monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a strategies to achieve the transparent, timely and adaptive manner and consultation, in a transparent, timely and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and objectives. take some account of the wider implications of adaptive manner and take account of the wider take account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. decisions.

Decision-making processes use the Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best precautionary approach and are based on best available information. available information.

Explanations are provided for any actions or Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders lack of action associated with findings and describes how the management system relevant recommendations emerging from responded to findings and relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and review recommendations emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

Scoring Comments There are well established decision-making processes at all levels in the management system that are able to respond to serious and important issues identified by research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation. These processes are particularly evident at the local (Sea Fisheries Committee) level, where regular meetings of a Committee comprised of local authority, fishery and environmental stakeholders ensures that decisions are taken on the basis of the best available information and use the precautionary approach. At the national level, such views have been taken into account in the consideration of changes to the MLS and the location of bass nursery areas around the coast. Management bodies are required to explain their response to these issues, ensuring that responses are transparent. Thise management system takes account of the wider implications of regulating commercial fisheries, such as the environmental effects of commercial fisheries, and the effect of such measures on the social and economic value of recreational fisheries. Score: 90 All of the SG80 requirements are met. The system is not capable of responding to all management issues, nor is a formal system of reporting to all interested stakeholders in place at all levels in the management system. Thus two of the four SG100 requirements are met, justifying the shore of 90. Audit Trace References Section 7.4.2

11 See note 6 supra. FN 82061 v4 Page 108 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

3.2.3 Compliance and Monitoring, control and surveillance A monitoring, control and surveillance system A comprehensive monitoring, control and enforcement mechanisms exist, are implemented in the has been implemented in the fishery under surveillance system has been implemented in Monitoring, control and fishery under assessment and there is a assessment and has demonstrated an ability to the fishery under assessment and has surveillance mechanisms reasonable expectation that they are effective. enforce relevant management measures, demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce ensure the fishery’s strategies and/or rules. relevant management measures, strategies management measures are and/or rules. enforced and complied with. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, and there is some evidence that they are are consistently applied and thought to provide are consistently applied and demonstrably applied. effective deterrence. provide effective deterrence.

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

There is no evidence of systematic non- There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. compliance.12

Scoring Comments A well established system for monitoring, control and surveillance of the fishery is in place. Uniformed enforcement officers from the MMO, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Cornwall SFC and Devon SFC patrol the area on land and at sea. These organisations have demonstrated their ability to consistently enforce management measures through sanctions (seizure of fishing gear, catches, criminal prosecutions and fines upon conviction for an offence) that provide effective deterrence.

The logbook schemes in place for the fleet in the unit of certification, combined with the requirements of the “Registered Buyers and Sellers” Regulations, require fishermen to provide information on their activities which is used to help manage the fishery effectively. This provides some evidence of compliance with the management system.

The assessment team noted that there is a perception among anglers that compliance with regulations by the trawl fleet may not be very good. Meetings were also held with all of the enforcement bodies responsible for the certification area. No evidence or concerns about systematic non-compliance were reported. Score: 90 All of the SG80 requirements are met by the fishery. The management system provides comprehensive management, control and surveillance and there is no evidence of systematic non- compliance, meeting two of the four SG100 requirements and justifying a score of 90. Audit Trace References Section 7.4.3 , Interviews I8, I9, I10, I11, I12, I13, I14, I15

12 See note 6 supra. FN 82061 v4 Page 109 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

3.2.4 Research plan Research is undertaken, as required, to achieve A research plan provides the management A comprehensive research plan provides the The fishery has a research the objectives consistent with MSC’s system with a strategic approach to research management system with a coherent and plan that addresses the Principles 1 and 2. and reliable and timely information sufficient strategic approach to research across P1, P2 information needs of to achieve the objectives consistent with and P3, and reliable and timely information management. MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

Research results are available to interested Research results are disseminated to all Research plan and results are disseminated to parties. interested parties in a timely fashion. all interested parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available.

Scoring Comments

There is no strategic research plan for the fishery. However, a lot of research is undertaken that is relevant to the UoC, both in terms of research into the target stock and into the effects of fishing activity on non-target species, ETP species and habitats. Research results are disseminated to interested parties and are also made widely and publicly available (for instance, see the recent FSP report by Catchpole (2009), which was carried out in the UoC and which is available on the Cefas website).

Score: 70 The research that is undertaken meets both SG60 requirements. It is disseminated to interested parties in a timely fashion. A score of 70 is therefore justified.

Audit Trace References Catchpole, 2009; Gubbay & Knapman, 1998; Elliott et al, 1998. Section 7.4.4

FN 82061 v4 Page 110 SCORING CRITERIA SCORING GUIDEPOST 60 SCORING GUIDEPOST 80 SCORING GUIDEPOST 100

3.2.5 Monitoring and The fishery has in place mechanisms to The fishery has in place mechanisms to The fishery has in place mechanisms to management evaluate some parts of the management system evaluate key parts of the management system evaluate all parts of the management system performance evaluation and is subject to occasional internal review. and is subject to regular internal and occasional and is subject to regular internal and external There is a system for external review. review. monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives.

There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.

Scoring Comments

The management regime for UK and EC fisheries is subject to internal and external review. At the EC level there is a decadal cycle of review of the Common Fisheries Policy. The next CFP review is due for completion in 2012. During the past 6 years there has been a comprehensive review of the institutional and legal arrangements for domestic fisheries management in the UK and devolved administrations. This review started in 2004 with the publication of external reviews of fishery management by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the process ended with the reforms that were implemented by the Marine & Coastal Access Act in 2009. This was a comprehensive review of all parts of the management system, but was the first such review for over a century.

While this major review of the management system should be rewarded with an appropriate score, it is important to note that review of management of the bass fishery is less comprehensive and irregular. The only regular cycle of management review takes place at the local level, through the cycle of Sea Fisheries Committee meetings. Most aspects of the review of the management system are ad-hoc. A key shortcoming is that there are no fishery-specific objectives against which to evaluate management performance.

Score: 70 The fishery consistently meets the SG60 requirements for occasional review of some parts of management; a higher score is justified by the recent review of the domestic management regime and upcoming CFP review, which partially meet the SG80 requirements, justifying a score of 70.

Audit Trace References UK Cabinet Office, 2004; Defra, 2005; Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009; Secton 7.4.5

FN 82061 v4 Page 111 16 .2 Risk-Based Framework Assessment: The Risk Based Framework (RBF) assessment was carried out following consultation with key stakeholders (listed in section 2 .3 ), specifically interviewsI1, I2, I3, I4, I5, I6, I8, I9, I10, I11, I12, I13, I14 & I15. Prior to conducting these interviews, the assessment team had reviewed the available published information, to provide a focus for use of the RBF in the assessment and a framework for the interviews with stakeholders. The stakeholder consultation process is described in section 12 .1 of this report.

16.2.1 Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)

1.1.1 Stock status – Risk Based Framework analysis

Performance Spatial scale of Temporal scale Intensity of Consequence Risk-causing activities Relevant subcomponents MSC Score Indicator activity of activity activity score Target species Fishing activities from all fisheries outcome including: Population size  Direct capture  Unobserved mortality (e.g. gear loss) Reproductive capacity  Capture as bycatch in other fisheries 6 5 3  Other identified risk-causing Age/size/sex structure activites (please specify) 3 60

Geographic range

Rationale: The English and Welsh West Coast stock of bass (ICES Divisions VIIa, f, g) is prosecuted by a range of inshore and offshore fisheries. These include the trawl fishery under assessment, commercial rod & line fisheries, gill net fisheries, and demersal and pelagic trawls. Together, these exploit the whole size-age range of the bass population. However, the aggregate fishing mortality, though relatively low, is likely to result in a smaller average size and younger mean age than in an unexploited population. Population size is more strongly influenced by reproductive success which is environmentally driven. In view of the combination of MLS and MMS for gill nets and nursery area controls, mortality of juveniles (especially due to discards) is likely to be highest in inshore trawl fisheries, such as that in the Bristol Channel. The spatial scale score of 6 was given because through the year the stock is prosecuted across more than 60% of its distribution (both inshore and offshore). A temporal scale score of 5 was awarded, since there are periods particularly in the colder months of the year when bass fisheries do not operate in ICES Divisions VIIa, f and g. The intensity of activity was scored at 3. This score reflects the findings of the most recent scientific information that suggests a moderate fishing mortality of between 0.2 and 0.4. It is also consistent with stakeholder comments made during the site visit that there can be temporary local depletion of bass following trawling activity in the Bristol Channel. The assessment team consider that a consequence score of 3, equivalent to an MSC score of 60, is appropriate. This conclusion is based upon consideration of the most recent scientific

FN 82061 v4 Page 112 information available, information from the fishery, and comments made by stakeholders at meetings during the site visit. This information all strongly suggests that there has recently been a change in the size structure (and by inference, age) in catches. This is likely to have an effect on population dynamics and MSY (Cefas simulation on proposed changes to MLS), but long term recruitment dynamics will not be adversely affected, since these are governed mainly by environmental factors (e.g. temperature).

FN 82061 v4 Page 113 2.1.1 Retained non-target species – Risk Based Framework analysis

Performance Risk-causing activities from fishery Spatial scale of Temporal scale Intensity of Consequence Relevant subcomponents MSC Score Indicator under assessment activity of activity activities score

PRINCIPLE  Fishing Population size 2 80 TWO:  Gear loss Retained  Bait collection Species  Other identified risk-causing Outcome activities (please specify) Reproductive capacity

Species: Plaice 3 4 3 Lesser Spotted Age/size/sex structure Dogfish Small Eyed Rays Thornback Rays (most notable; Geographic range others also retained)) Rationale: The assessment team consider that plaice are the retained species that is most vulnerable to the effects of the fishery because it makes up the greatest component of the retained catch of depleted species (lesser spotted dogfish actually make up a larger proportion of the catch but are not considered to be in a depleted state). The main risk-causing activity is considered to be fishing, and the most vulnerable sub-component is likely to be the plaice population size. ICES advises that the high level of discarding of VIIf,g plaice indicate a mismatch between the mesh size employed and the size of the fish landed, and that the use of larger-mesh gear should be encouraged in this mixed fishery to reduce discards and increase yield.

The spatial scale of the fishery was scored at 3, because the fishery is thought to cover no more than 30% of the range of the VIIf & g plaice stock. The temporal scale of the activity was scored at 4 because plaice occur in the area seasonally rather than year-round. The intensity of the activity is considered to be moderate, and scored accordingly.

The scale of removals by this fishery from the VII f & g plaice stock is unlikely to be detectable against background variability for the population or to have a significant effect on population size or growth rate. These removals are small in comparison to targeted removals from the stock. As a precautionary measure, however, a score of 2 (equivalent to an MSC score of 80) has been awarded in view of the depleted nature of the plaice stock (though there was no recovery plan in place in 2009).

FN 82061 v4 Page 114 2.2.1 Discarded non-target species – Risk Based Framework analysis

Temporal Performance Risk-causing activities from Spatial scale of Intensity of Relevant Consequence scale of MSC Score Indicator fishery under assessment activity activities subcomponents score activity PRINCIPLE  Fishing Population size TWO:  Gear loss 3 60 Discarded  Bait collection Species  Other identified risk- Outcome causing activities (please Reproductive capacity specify) Species: Starry Smooth Hound 3 4 3 Lesser Spotted Age/size/sex structure Dogfish Greater Spotted Dogfish Geographic range

Rationale: The largest proportion of the discarded species is made up of lesser spotted dogfish, followed by starry smooth hounds and greater spotted dogfish. The assessment team considers that the starry smooth hound is the most vulnerable species most because they are larger, and later maturing than other the two species of dogfish, have a lower fecundity and a higher market value (which means that the species is prosecuted commercially in parts of its range).

Fishing is the activity most likely to affect this species, and the most likely effect of the fishery would be to reduce population size.

Starry smooth hounds have a range extending from the Norwegian coast to the Mediterranean; however, the team has assumed that there is a local stock and has scored the spatial scale as 3. The temporal scale has been scored as a 4 because the species is seasonally abundant. The intensity is considered to be moderate – there is no evidence of the effect of the activity at a broader scale, but local effects cannot be ruled out.

Very little biological or population data is available for this species, so it is not possible to predict the effect of this fishery on population size or dynamics. By analogy with spurdogs, the long- term recruitment dynamics of this species are unlikely to be adversely damaged by the fishery under assessment, justifying a consequence score of 3.

Because a SICA score of 3 has been returned for the starry smooth hound, a PSA analysis has to be carried out for all of the main discarded species. This is set out in Table 6. The data used for the PSA have been taken from Shark Trust 2010a and from Fishbase.

FN 82061 v4 Page 115 16.2.2 Productivity –Susceptibility Analysis (PSA).

The results of PSA analysis are calculated in a spreadsheet provided by the MSC for this purpose. The results are set out in the table below. The scoring criteria uses in this fishery are set out in Table 8 overleaf.

Table 6: Results of Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis for target, retained and discarded species in the unit of certification.

Productivity Scores Susceptibility Scores PSA scores Mean Scores

PSA MSC

Species at age Average maturity age max Average Fecundity size max Average at size Average Maturity Reproductive strategy level Trophic (fishbase) Total Productivity (average) Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) Score Score (relative Weight magnitude of landings) Target Species (Bass, Dicentrarchus labrax ) Inshore trawl fishery 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1.57 3 2 3 3 2.33 2.81 75 2 These are estimated from Gill net fishery 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1.57 3 2 1 3 1.43 2.12 93 1 landings data and anecdote. Rod & line fishery 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1.57 3 2 1 3 1.43 2.12 93 1 Offshore pair trawl fishery 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1.57 3 2 1 3 1.43 2.12 93 1 Unweighted mean 88 Weighted Mean 85.6 Retained Species SICA score of 80 awarded; PSA not appropriate

Discarded Species Mustelus asterias 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2.43 2 1 3 2 1.28 2.74 77 Applying the rationale set out in para Scyliorhinus canicula 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 2.14 2 1 3 2 1.28 2.49 84 4.4.2 (c) of the FAM, this equates to an Scyliorhinus stellaris 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2.29 2 1 3 2 1.28 2.62 81 MSC score of 75

In line with recent MSC advice13, a weighted mean has been calculated to determine the final MSC score resulting from all fishery removals for the target stock. The weightings for each fishery are set out in Table 7. They result in a weighted mean score of 85.6 for the fishery.

13 MSC Policy Advisory 18(v1): Revision to FAM v2 including the RBF. FN 82061 v4 Page 116 Table 7: Weightings assigned to the different fishing methods removing bass from the unit of certification stock. Weightings are based on landings data and anecdotal information. Fishing method Weighting Inshore trawl fishery 2 Gill net fishery 1 Rod & line fishery 1 Offshore pair trawl fishery 1

The scores used in this PSA analysis are based on the default attributes set out in the MSC’s Fisheries Assessment Methodology version 2. The selectivity score is determined on a fishery-specific basis. The attributes used for this fishery are set out in the table below.

Table 8: Selectivity attributes and scores used for this unit of certification, and rationale for scores awarded in PSA analysis.

Fishing Method / Low susceptibility Medium susceptibility High susceptibility Métier (low risk, score=1) (medium risk, score=2) (High risk, score=3)

Trawling Capture Catches only larger animals Catches only adults but including animals likely Catches wide range of size classes including juveniles. to be discarded (for legal or commercial reasons) Retention High level of retention and / or low level of Moderate level of discarding. Low level of retention and / or high level of discarding. discarding. Basis for criteria These criteria for trawling were defined by the assessment team for this assessment.

The selectivity of the trawl fishery for the target species is a product of two distinct stages in the fishing process:  Capture: the selectivity of the trawls used to catch bass; and  Retention: the proportion of fish retained after capture.

These two criteria are especially relevant to bass fisheries. With no quota restrictions in place, the only reason for discarding fish is that they are below the MLS. A poor match between the selectivity of trawls and the MLS of bass will result in high levels of discarding. A good match (larger mesh size in trawls and / or fishing in areas where there are no smaller fish) will reduce discarding.

Rationale for scores awarded There is scientific and anecdotal evidence that the trawls used in the Unit of Certification will retain undersized fish, and this can lead to high levels of discarding, hence a susceptibility score of 3 is appropriate for this métier.

Trawlers operating further offshore are less likely to encounter small fish and thus capture and discarding rates of small fish are lower. A score of 1 is more

FN 82061 v4 Page 117 Fishing Method / Low susceptibility Medium susceptibility High susceptibility Métier (low risk, score=1) (medium risk, score=2) (High risk, score=3) appropriate for this métier.

Gill Net Smaller than mesh size or over 5m in length 1-2 times mesh size, or 4-5m in length >2 times mesh size to, say, 4m in length. Basis for criteria These criteria are taken from the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology.

Rationale for scores awarded The team note that the minimum mesh size restrictions imposed upon the gill net fishery were designed on the basis of gear trials to minimise the capture of undersized bass. The gill net fishery is thus highly selective, with low levels of discarding. The range of mesh sizes used in the fishery also minimise capture of very large fish. A susceptibility score of 1 is therefore appropriate for this métier.

Hook & Line 1. Does not eat bait 1. Large species, with adults rarely caught but 1. Bait used is selected for this type of species and is a 2. Species with capacity to break line when hooked. juveniles captured by hooks known diet preference. 3. Selectivity known to be low from selectivity 2. Species with capacity to break snood when 2. Species unable to break snood when landed analysis / experiment (e.g. <33% of fish encountering being landed 3. Selectivity known to be high from selectivity analysis gear are selected. 3. Selectivity known to be medium from / experiment (e.g. >66% of fish encountering gear are selectivity analysis / experiment (e.g. <66% of selected). fish encountering gear are selected. Basis for criteria These criteria are taken from the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology.

Rationale for scores awarded The rod and line fishery in the Bristol Channel is highly selective, despite the fishermen using gear that is very effective at catching bass (using bait that is attractive to the bass, and lines that cannot be broken by them). The key stages in selectivity lie in the choice of fishing area; and in immediate decisions on fish retention. Bass caught by rod & line are released alive, and will survive. A susceptibility score of 1 is therefore the most appropriate for this métier.

FN 82061 v4 Page 118 17 PEER REVIEWS

17 .1 Peer Reviewer Biographies

Dr. David Bennett. David Bennett has 40 years experience in fisheries research, specialising in the biology, population dynamics, and assessment of commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks (e.g. lobsters, crabs, Nephrops, shrimps) the provision of national and international fisheries management advice, and fisheries aspects of environmental impact studies. He chaired the ICES Working Group on Nephrops stocks, has been a member of a number of ICES Working and Study Groups, and an expert for DG XIV of the EU Commission. More recently as a consultant he has been a member of the MSC teams that assessed the UK NESFC Lobster and Bass fisheries and reassessed the Loch Torridon Nephrops Creel Fishery. He has peer reviewed the original MSC Loch Torridon assessment, the Burry Inlet Cockle, the Vietnamese Ben Tre Clam fishery, the Southern and SFSAG North Sea Nephrops and SFSAG North Sea Haddock trawl fisheries, the Stornoway Nephrops trawl fishery, and is currently reviewing the Clyde Nephrops trawl and creel fisheries.

Neil Downes Neil Downes has 30 years experience in fisheries management, specialising in the control and exploitation of marine fisheries, nationally and internationally. He has worked in the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food as a District Inspector of Fisheries during which he was involved with negotiations with DG XIV of the EU Commission. Internationally, he completed fisheries management assignments in the Falkland Islands, Mauritania, Angola, and Sierra Leone. More recently he was the Chief Fisheries Officer of Devon Sea Fisheries with responsibilities for coastal fisheries off both the North and South coasts of Devon. During his time in office he was also the Chair of Chief Fisheries Officers of England and Wales for eleven years which gave him and overview of the management of coastal fisheries with England and Wales.

17 .2 Peer Review Report A

The bass fishery in the waters off the South West has traditionally been rod and line with the addition of French pair trawlers targeting bass shoals in mid English Channel with pelagic trawls during the summer months. The development of using bottom trawls to fish for bass is a relatively new innovation, no doubt brought about by the catch restrictions for other species as well as the increase in demand for bass.

The use of bottom trawls always runs the risk of catching a by-catch of species other than those targeted. From the information obtained by the assessors it is evident that this is the case. Both plaice and dogfish formed a significant by-catch during fishing trails carried out in July and August 2009. From the contents of the Report, the assessors, in considering the application, made a comprehensive reference to the scientific papers covering bass stocks and their life cycle around England and Wales. It is unfortunate that the most recent study was undertaken in 2006, since then it is evident from the information obtain from the recreational angling boats, that there is a worrying decline in both the quantity and size of fish caught in the period 2007 – 2009. Indeed, there was anecdotal evidence that recent bass catches had consisted of fish weigh less than 1 kg. Whether decline is through exploitation or poor recruitment has yet to be determined. In the absence of any recent scientific data, it does give rise to concern regarding the sustainability of the bass stock in the Bristol Channel.

Principle 1 The results of the scientific data for bass obtained in 2006 for the larger area (ICES VIIa, f, g), found

FN 82061 v4 Page 119 that bass was being exploited sustainably. Unfortunately the assessors were unable to ascertain the status of the bass stock relative to unfished population. They therefore decided to adopt a Risk Based Approach to the assessment.

The present management controls to safeguard bass from over exploitation have concentrated on restricting the retention and capture of immature bass. The minimum landing size of 36 cms has been an effective measure for inshore and estuarine fisheries since its introduction in 1989. In 1990 the EU introduced a banned range of net meshes (70 – 90mm) for fixed nets targeting bass, but there is no corresponding linkage between MLS and MMS for trawls. The mesh size used in the trawl fishery is capable of catching bass that are smaller than the MLS. From a trial carried out in July and August 2009 it is evident that the use of a square-mesh panel fitted to trawls would reduce the overall by- catch and greatly reduce the number of undersize bass. On balance, having regard for the available data on bass stock levels together with present controls designed to maintain sustainable exploitation rates, the bass trawl fishery satisfied the main criteria for this section.

Principle 2 The main source of information regarding the fishery’s affect on other species within the UoC was the recent study carried out under the Fisheries Science Partnership (FSP). The results of this study showed that the by-catch consisted of mainly lesser spotted dogfish, plaice, small eyed ray and thornback rays. Because of the short length of tows it appeared that survival of the dogfish was high, allowing them to be returned to the sea alive. The ray fishery is valued fishery for the local vessels and therefore the fishermen are attempting to establish a marine conservation area during the period 1 December – 31 May each year to safeguard juvenile rays. However, ICES classifies the plaice stock as being at risk of reduced reproductive capacity and has advised a significant reduction in fish mortality. Therefore it is disappointing to note that measures to reduce discards have not been implemented in the fishery. Moreover, paucity of information about discards for both target and non- target species did not enable the team to assess the increase in risk to the main by-catch species. This was the main reason the assessment for Principle Two failed.

Principle 3 The team considered that there was a well established management framework in place for the fishery to deliver a regime designed to conserve stocks and protect the marine environment. The sea bass fishery is not managed by TAC, therefore there are no catch allocations and no discrimination of fishing opportunities between commercial fishermen and leisure anglers. The management system is founded on clear set of legal rules that establish statutory powers for fishery managers. The level of compliance has improved with the introduction of The Buyers and Sellers Regulations 2005. Unfortunately there are no penalties for discarding undersized bass and the selectivity of the trawls has not been adequately addressed, nor are there social or economic incentives to discourage unsustainable practice.

In assessing the information, the team found that as the bass trawl fishery was relatively new it did not have any explicit short or long-term objectives. Consequently it attracted a low score.

The fishery scored well as regards the well established decision making processes, at all levels of management the system reacted well to important issues highlighted by research, monitoring and consultation. This was especially noticeable at the local level where Sea Fisheries Committees took decisions based on the best available information and used the precautionary approach. Similarly, a well established system for monitoring, control and surveillance of the fishery is in place with sanctions that provide effective deterrence.

As the bass trawl fishery is relatively recent, the team found the fishery was lacking a strategic research plan. There was however research undertaken within the UoC that is relevant to the target stock and into the effects of fishing activity on non-target species. But the lack of a research plan was the prime reason for the fishery not satisfying the specified criteria.

FN 82061 v4 Page 120 The team noted that the management regime for UK and EC fisheries is subject to internal and external reviews. Unfortunately review of management of the bass fishery is less comprehensive and irregular as it is not a TAC species. Consequently most aspects of the review are ad-hoc which causes the fishery to fail as it does not satisfy the criteria necessary for it to pass.

Summary In undertaking the assessment of the bass trawl fishery the team not only examined existing scientific research papers and current legislation pertinent to fisheries within the UoC, they also took the opportunity to conduct interviews with personnel who either managed fisheries in the Bristol Channel area or who carried out commercial fishing and angling in the area. From this information the team were required to assess whether the bass trawl fishery met the criteria laid down by the Marine Stewardship Council for it to be given certification as a sustainable fishery. Unfortunately it failed for the reasons clearly stated in the Report Summary. To overcome the shortcomings the assessors set conditions for continuing certification that the client is required to address within specific time frames. They identified five key areas for consideration:

1. (a) Because the unfished bass population cannot be estimated, a stock assessment should be reviewed using more recent data to provide greater certainty about stock status. In order to achieve this, cooperation will be required between the client and relevant entities capable of meeting the condition. The timescales set are that the capacity of relevant entities to carry out research into stock status to be determined immediately. This to be followed within 12 months by action to encourage research and re- assessment of the stock, and within 3 years a re-assessment of the stock and research into stock depletion.

1 (b) Given the prospect of Government cuts, scientific agencies such as Cefas, could be adversely affected in the months ahead. In view of this it may be necessary to review the deadline of 3 years recommended for the re-assessment of stock and research into localised stock depletion.

2. Within 12 months information should be made available regarding the quantity of plaice retained in the bass fishery. Moreover, within 3 years changes to fishing practice to reduce the retention of plaice should be implemented, and confirmation of the effectiveness of these measures should be available within 5 years. Both the timescale and measures required are fair and reasonable.

3. The requirement to record the level of discards of both target and non-target species within 12 months is easily attainable, as is the analyse of the data within 2 years.

4. The development of fishery-specific objectives may take longer than the 12 months specified, but the objectives should be identified within 2 years and implemented by the fleet within 3 years.

5. Given the current turmoil in public finances, the timescale of 12 months to produce a research plan with objectives with the aid of relevant entities might need to be reviewed. Adoption of the research plan within 2 years appears reasonable.

MML Response: These comments and the endorsement of the assessment outcome are noted.

FN 82061 v4 Page 121 17 .3 Peer Review Report B

(A). PREAMBLE

My review is based on a reading of the Pre-assessment report (Moody Marine, December 2007) and the Version: 2 Peer Review Report. I have made no attempt to access or peruse the very extensive list of publications cited by the assessment team. The review benefits from my past experience with fisheries stock assessment and management, and the various MSC certification assessments and peer reviews I have undertaken, including the Northeastern Sea Fisheries Committee Sea Bass assessment.

My comments are referenced to the section numbering in the Report and to page numbers in the printed copy provided, which differed slightly from the .pdf file. Where section headings are omitted I had no comment to make. Relatively minor editorial notes are listed in a separate annex, which need not be published with the main review as long as satisfactory responses can be made.

(B). SUMMARY & OVERALL COMMENTS

This is a competent and comprehensive assessment of the Bristol Channel trawl bass fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries. The Report provides an authoritative overview of the fishery and the issues that relate to the three MSC Principles. In the main, I concur with the comments and scoring in the Report, and the recommendation not to certify.

There are considerable uncertainties about the current stock status. The lack of adequate fisheries data and a recent stock assessment, together with the warning signs of declining landings and mean size, raise serious concerns about the impact of trawling with its undesirable exploitation pattern.

The report text sections could have placed more emphasis on the problem of discarding undersized bass for inshore trawling. This seems to be a critical negative factor in the assessment, yet it did not seem to sufficiently influence the scoring when using the RBF, particularly the PSA.

MML Response: the text has been amended to highlight the concerns about discarding fo undersized bass by inshore trawlers. We have reviewed the RBF and PSA scoring, and find that the correct scores have been used. If the inshore trawl fishery had been scored by itself, it would have been awarded a PSA score of 75. Revisions by the MSC to the RBF require a weighted mean based on the relative proportion of all fishery removals to be used to define the PSA score, which raises it to 85.6.

We were concerned about the discrepancy between the RBF score arising from the SICA analysis (60) and the PSA analysis (85.6). We exercised our expert judgement and awarded a score of 70 rather than 85.6. Our reasoning was identical to that set out by the peer reviewer. (We note that this approach has been endorsed by the reviewer in the comments relating to this performance indicator below).

The Report concludes that the fishery should not be recommended for certification as it failed Principles 2 and 3. I consider it should have also failed Principle 1, but the RBF scoring seems to be overly generous. I have also suggested some of the FAM scores in Principle 1 were too high.

MML Response: See our comments about how we have applied the RBF in this context. In brief we reduced this score in the light of our knowledge of the fishery and its potential effects.

We have reviewed the scoring under P1 in the light of the peer review comments. It seems appropriate to reduce some of the scores awarded slightly (see below). This reduces the overall P1 score to less than 80.

FN 82061 v4 Page 122 To raise the scoring of the fishery to satisfy the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries the assessment team has made a number of Conditions. I agree with these Conditions, though I would have placed more emphasis in Condition 3 on the need to improve the trawl exploitation pattern for bass. From the meagre evidence currently available, I would not expect this fishery to achieve certification unless there is a major reduction in trawl caught undersized bass. All the good work done to minimise the capture of immature bass with a restricted mesh size range for enmeshing nets and the banning of fishing from boats in nursery areas appears to be compromised by this trawl fishery.

MML Response: The report has been revised to bring the concerns about gear selectivity (which were clearly made in scoring comment tables) to more prominence.

(C). GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE MAIN REPORT AND SCORING TABLE.

The report is commendably detailed and appears to be reassuringly authoritative. There is a need for a paragraph explaining what the Risk Based Framework (RBF) is, and why it was used in this assessment. (The first reference to it appears in the Scoring Table (apart from the Stakeholder Notification: Use of the default assessment tree and RBF - 25th November 2009 (MSC website)).)

MML Response: appropriate text has been added to the report (a new section, numbered 13.2) to explain the RBF and its use in this assessment.

The definition of the unit of certification used complies with TAB D-003, Unit of Certification (MSC, 2004). The Report and Scoring Comment Table have endeavoured to take account of the overall bass sub-population. The Bristol Channel bass fisheries are currently included in the same management unit as fisheries exploiting bass populations in the eastern Irish Sea and Celtic Sea (ICES Divisions VIIa, f & g) and the northern part of the western English Channel (VIIe). However, there are difficulties in estimating the recreational landings, together with the landings from French mid-water trawling.

4.2. Fleet and gear description. page 19, 1st parag. “They are generally small, mostly under 10m registered length.” Not according to Table 1.

MML Response: text has been modified to correct this (and Table 1 modified to show lengths as “m” rather than “MTR”).

2nd parag. The trawl mesh size in use is not specified (there are lots of references to the mesh sizes for enmeshing gears throughout the Report). Apart from one mention of 80mm stretched mesh (Page 32, 6.3.2.) I could not find any details of the actual trawl meshes in use by the client fleet, or the factors (legislation, target species, practical considerations, etc.) that influence their choice of mesh size. There are two references in 19.1.2 to “….80mm cod-ends typically used….” and “…in the area with 90mm cod ends….”.

Even in the references to the Fisheries-Science Partnership (FSP) study on square mesh panels there was no mention of the cod-end mesh size in use. I would have expected to see something about trawl mesh size in Table 3 (second one, page 44, should be Table 4). (See also the comments below (5.2.2.) about the lack of bass discard data.)

MML Response: the text has been amended to include a description of the typical gear used in the fishery. The comment reported in section 19.1.2 does not relate to a vessel in the client fleet.

FN 82061 v4 Page 123 5.2.2. Assessment of stock.

Landings, effort, landings per unit effort (LPUE), and length/age sampling.

Page 24, 1st sentence. “Prior to implementation of the Buyers and Sellers regulation in 2005 (see section 7.3.2.1), the official statistics grossly underestimated the quantities of bass landed in England and Wales (Pawson et al., 2007a).” In Table 2 the UK (Engl. & Wales) landings since 2006 (now considered more reliable) have declined from a mean of the previous 10 years (considered to be underestimated) of 471t, to just 168t in 2007, and 180t in 2008. Surely this gives cause for concern about the state of the bass stocks in the areas fished by UK vessels. Is this an indication of over- exploitation, or a consequence of only average recruitment since the last strong 1997 year class (Figure 4)?.

MML Response: The text indicates that UK landings data between 1995 and 2006 include Cefas logbook data; landings for for 2007 and 2008 do not include this data. This accounts for the apparent drop. The text has been amended and a note added to Table 2 to make this clear.

While the Bristol Channel is only part of this UK fishery, why do we not have some statistics for the local fishery? Some of the client fleet are >10m vessels and have to keep EU logbooks. These records, available from MMO, could have provided some time trends of landings and fishing effort, possibly allowing calculation of LPUE trends.

Accurate recording of landings and effort for all client fleet vessels is a likely requirement of MSC assessment. In order to achieve certification the pre-assessment report (Moody, 2007) identified the requirement for data on landings and effort to be provided by NDFA to allow an index of stock status to be estimated. But I cannot find any evidence in this Report that NDFA have addressed the shortfall in landings and effort records, particularly from the <10m vessels in the client fleet. Do they participate in the CEFAS voluntary logbook scheme?

MML Response: Unofficial landings data from the client fleet have been included in the text for 2008 and 2009. Official landings data for the client fleet have not been made available to the assessment team. There are no Cefas logbooks for the client fleet. Calculation of LPUE trends might indeed be possible but lies outside the scope of the assessment team’s remit.

Is there any UoC port-based sampling of bass landings for length and scale ageing? If not, should NDFA have been helping to provide it?

MML Response: Our understanding is that independent port based sampling of bass landings is not carried out. Appropriate text has been added to clarify this in section 5.2.2..

Bass discards.

It is acknowledged in the Report that there is little data on bass discarding. (Quote: page 26, 3rd parag. “There is little information on bass discards, but they were thought to be either insignificant (in nets) or to survive on being returned to the water (from lines)”). The CEFAS voluntary logbook scheme “…provides daily catch records….(though only two in the Bristol Channel)”. Were either of these vessels trawlers and members of the client fleet? Was it really “catch” recorded in the logbooks, or just landings? (See also page 27, 4th parag “….catch and effort data….”.).

MML Response: neither of the vessels involved in the Cefas logbook scheme were trawlers from the unit of certification area. The query about whether the text should refer to catches or landings highlights an error – it should be just landings, and the text has been amended accordingly.

FN 82061 v4 Page 124 Were there any records (quantity and size/sex composition) of bass discards from trawlers, other than those recorded in the FSP study? Fishing Focus No. 8 (Defra, Autumn 2007, “Bass – background to the announcement [MLS]) quoted “Both anglers and commercial fishermen submitted further information, which we assessed, particularly on discard levels in the trawl fishery drawing on research by Cefas.” suggesting that there were discard data. Why is there so little information in the FSP study of the actual catches of undersized bass? Catchpole (2009) does mention that the 30% of the bass caught in the standard trawl were undersized, while in the trawl fitted with the 90mm square- mesh panel only caught 11% undersized, but gives no detailed data.!

MML Response: There are no records of discarding of undersized bass from the fishery available to us other than the FSP study. The Fishing Focus article refers to modelling work that was carried out by Cefas rather than direct observations from the fishery. We are unable to explain the content of the FSP report.

Are we to assume that roughly a third of the commercial trawl catch from the client fleet is undersized? In 6.2. Retained species & 6.3 Discarded species (pages 31-33) the only mention of bass discards is to “exclude” them from the discussion! Bearing in mind that the issue of discards from trawls was a major item of concern raised by several stakeholders (Section 19), though the lack of data is addressed in Condition 3, I am surprised this topic did not elicit a more substantial discussion in the Report. While it was considered that bass discarded from trawling with short tows may survive quite well (page 30, 1st parag.) there does not seem to be any direct observations on discard survival in this fishery.

MML Response: Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the report address retention and discarding of non-target species. A new section (5.3) has been added to the report which brings together some of the comments and information relating to discarding of bass that were already in the report and puts it in one place to demonstrate how we have approached this issue.

It is not until getting to the P1, 1.1.1 SICA & PSA analyses (16.2, 16.3), P2, 2.5.3, and P3, 3.1.4. of the Scoring Table (16.1) do we find the assessment team seriously addressing the undersized bass issue.

In the SICA a maximum consequence score of 3 (16.2, 1.1.1.) was given for trawling on age/size/sex structure (considered to have the “worst plausible impact”). This gave an MSC score of 60. The obligatory PSA was scored with 3 (“high susceptibility”) for selectivity, quoting “There is scientific and anecdotal evidence that the trawls used in the Unit of Certification will retain undersized fish, and this can lead to high levels of discarding,….”. Despite weighting the inshore trawl fishery x2 (other gears x1), the overall PSA score was quite high at 85.6.

Quote from 3.1.4: “However, there are no penalties for discarding undersized bass, and selectivity issues have not adequately been addressed within trawl fisheries. Concerns about discard mortality of undersized bass from the trawl fishery were raised by stakeholders during the site visit. Recent studies suggest that a discard rate of 30% is typical in this fishery, with instances of up to 95% of a catch being discarded.” These concerns led to a score of 70 for 3.1.4 for the impact of trawling, while seemingly not taking account of gill nets and rod & line. Compare this with the score of 85.6 from the PSA.

MML Response: we agree with these observations. The SICA score seems appropriate for the fishery, but the PSA score does not. We awarded a score of 70 rather than 85.6.

Recruitment. Page 26, 5th parag. “…a generally increased level of recruitment from 1995 onwards.” Increased relative to what – the mean? Only in 1995 and 1997, and maybe 1999, was the year class strength much above average (Figure 4 – draw in the average across the time period).

FN 82061 v4 Page 125 MML Response: the text has been amended to clarify these points.

Fishery limits. 7.3.1. “For the Bristol Channel this means that only UK vessels can fish in the 0-6m zone, and that some Dutch vessels can fish in the 6-12 nm zone.” My information on historical fishing rights give France and Belgium (not Netherlands) rights to fish for demersal species in the 6- 12nm limits. Do the French and Belgians fish for bass with mid-water trawls within that part of the 6-12nm belt that is within the UoC, or are they fishing further off in deeper water on the pre-spawning and spawning aggregations?

MML Response: this is correct. Our understanding is that the Belgian beam trawlers operating in the area are Dutch-owned. The text has been amended to clarify this.

7.4.5. Monitoring and evaluation.

What about the Bass Anglers' Sportfishing Society (BASS) as evaluators of what is going on in the commercial fishery?

MML Response: the assessment team met with and consulted the late John LeBalleur of BASS during the site visit. His comments helped to inform our approach to the assessment. This section of the report is concerned with the operation and performance of the statutory management framework for the fishery. We have noted that this system takes account of stakeholder views (which would include those of organisations like BASS)

16. APPENDIX A: SCORING TABLE

16.1. CONVENTIONAL ASSESSMENT

PRINCIPLE 1.

[All my comments are addressed to this Principle, and none to Principles 2 and 3. This is a reflection of the difficulty of dealing with the exacting requirements for fisheries stock assessment in the absence of sufficient data, and not a reproach for the author(s).]

1.1.1. Stock Status. 2nd parag. I assume the comment “…and this has resulted [in] high landings and stock levels.” relates to the period before 2007, as landings (Table 2) and mean size (first Table 3, page 28) have since declined significantly. In the 1.2.4. scoring comment it is accepted that “stock status at present is uncertain”.

MML Comment: see earlier comments: Table 2 lacks logbook data in recent years; Table 3 is not necessarily representative.

This is the second RBF scoring of P1, 1.1.1 I have encountered that has resulted in what appears to be an unrealistically high PSA score. The assessment team has taken a pragmatic approach by considering both the SICA (60) and PSA (85.6) scores and allocating an overall 1.1.1 score of 70. This is the sort of score I would have expected under FAM when RBF was not available. (See later comments on the SICA and PSA analysis.)

MML Response: we welcome this independent endorsement of our approach.

1.1.2. Reference Points. I find it strange that where a fishery is deemed not to meet the criteria for FAM, because biologically-based limits for sustainability (e.g. reference points) cannot be estimated,

FN 82061 v4 Page 126 that 1.1.2 then gets a favourable default score of 80. This default score contributes to the overall P1 score of 80.6 – a pass!

MML Response: this approach is a requirement of the MSC Fishery Assessment Methodology.

1.1.3. Stock rebuilding. The lack of a recent stock assessment, declining landings and mean length, and the general dearth of fisheries data ring warning bells about current stock status. While landings and mean size are declining I am not convinced that one can say “The low score for 1.1.1 arises from concerns about the potential effect of fishing on the population structure rather than from an effect on population size and reproductive capacity.”

MML Response: see our earlier comments with respect to landings and mean size data. The latest stock estimates indicate that the stock si higher than it ws in the mid-late 1980s, and there is no stock- recruitment relationship. There is therefore no basis for overall concern about population size or reproductive capacity

1.2.1. Harvest Strategy. The harvest strategy seems to be geared towards managing enmeshing nets, not trawls. There is currently no strategy to avoid the capture of under-sized bass in trawls. There is some scope for improving the trawl exploitation pattern with the use of square mesh panels, but these are not obligatory and the client fleet has not widely and voluntarily embraced them. It is interesting to note that fishers reported (19.1.2, page 123), that even with a cod end of 90mm mesh juvenile bass are retained. The assessment team has “not penalised the fishery for the absence of clearly defined reference points under this Performance Indicator, since the harvest strategy clearly uses an appropriate proxy for reference points, and the issue has been addressed under the scoring of P1 1.1.2.”. But the score in 1.1.2 is a default score that I consider should have been <80. Taking account of these points how can a perfect score for 1.2.1 of 100 be justified?

MML Response: the team evaluated the performance of the fishery with respect to this Performance Indicator on the basis of the overall performance of the Harvest Strategy for the bass fishery. We are not arguing that it is perfect; but we do consider that it meets the SG100 requirements. The concerns about the capture of under-sized bass in the trawl fishery have been addressed in the scoring of PIs 3.1.4 (70) and PI 3.2.1 (60).

1.2.2. Harvest control rules. The scoring comments (parag. 2) acknowledge the inability of the current harvest control rules to ameliorate the undesirable catch of undersized bass in trawls. See comment above regarding reference points and the default score for 1.1.2. This score of 85 is more realistic compared with 100 for 1.2.1.

MML Response: this score has been reduced to 80 following the withdrawal of the first of the SG100 performance inidicators by the MSC in September 2010.

1.2.3. Information/monitoring. I am surprised given the lack of information provided in this Report for trawl landings, effort, <10m vessel records, and size composition that the range of information available is considered to be “comprehensive”. Reconsider this score.

MML Response: we have reviewed this score in the light of these comments and also the announcement that monitoring of bass stocks in the UK is to be wound down.

1.2.4. Assessment of stock status. Agreed!

FN 82061 v4 Page 127 PRINCIPLE 2.

No comments.

PRINCIPLE 3.

No comments.

16.2. Risk-based Framework.

I concur with the SICA score of 60, but see following comments re PSA score.

16.3. RBF: productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA).

See my comments above (5.2.2. Bass Discards). The introduction of clear and appropriate scores of 1 for selectivity susceptibility (Table 5, should be Table 6) for gill nets, rod & line, and offshore pair trawls tend to overwhelm the adverse score of 3 for inshore trawl, despite the weighting applied (Table 6 [7]). Consequently the PSA score is 85.6 and seems overly generous. (See comments above 16.1, 1.1.1.)

MML Response: we shared this view and consequently reduced the score awarded for PI 1.1.1 from 85.6 to 70, a decision we note that the peer reviewer has endorsed.

ANNEX: MINOR EDITORIAL COMMENTS REQUIRING ATTENTION.

My comments are referenced to the original section, page, figure, and table numbering used in the printed version of the Report and Scoring Table.

There are slight variations in the font size throughout the Report, and even within paragraphs.

Some sections have used the Reference list notation and others sequentially numbered footnotes. All a bit confusing.

Spell out BASS where it first occurs in the Report, and explain what BASS Society is.

Page 20, 5.1.2. “Ripe…”. Would a more biological term have been more appropriate, or at least an explanation of what “ripe” is.

Page 24, 5.2.2. “Catch and fishing effort data”. Here and throughout the Report make sure you mean “catch” (i.e. landings plus discards) and not “landings”. LPUE is listed in the 3. Glossary …… , but is never used in the Report. Check you mean CPUE and not LPUE.

Page 26, 5th parag. Add “(Table 2)” somewhere in the last sentence.

Figure 4. Draw in the average.

Page 28, Table 3 – add to list, page 5 and renumber subsequent tables.

Page 31, 6.2.1. 2nd parag. “…DELAS project (Anon, 2003)…”. Explain DELAS and add Anon, 2003 to the reference list.

Page 32, 6.3. 3rd line. addition not “additional”.

FN 82061 v4 Page 128 Page 32, 6.3.2. 1st line. “UoC” First use after listing in 3. Glossary…. Spell it out. Last 3 lines. “100 mm”. In Catchpole (2009) he used 90mm square mesh panels (you correctly quoted 90mm on page 51, 9.2. 2nd parag.).

Page 44. Should be Table 4, not 3. Correct all subsequent tables and list (page 5).

Page 47, 7.4.3. 2nd line. Add …information (for >15m length vessels)…..

Figure 10. Label Trevose Head (it’s used in the text).

Page 57. * used in column 1, but no footnotes listed.

Page 61. 15.1. “The fishery attained a score of below 80 against 10 Performance Indicators. The assessment team has therefore set conditions for continuing certification that the client for certification is required to address. The conditions are applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the certification body, but no longer than the term of the certification.” The standard wording of this paragraph assumes that the fishery has passed, but this one has failed, and the wording is not appropriate.

Page 63, 1st sentence. “Trials of fishing gear incorporating larger meshes suggest that this would reduce discarding of non target and target species, but this gear has not been widely adopted by the UoC.” Did you mean “……incorporating square mesh panels of 90 mm mesh suggest that……?

Page 68. Comments, 2nd parag. Text outside margins. 3rd parag. Table 3.

Page 77, 1st line of comments - …takes account of all… Fill in Audit Trace references.

Page 106, last line. …no evidence of…

MML Response: These comments have been noted and appropriate changes have been made.

FN 82061 v4 Page 129 18 CLIENT ACTION PLAN

No action plan is required for this fishery, as it has not met the MSC Standard.

FN 82061 v4 Page 130 19 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

19 .1 Comments during site visit. Meetings were held with a number of key stakeholders during the site visit (see Section 12 for details).

Under a recent MSC Directive (TAB D-029 v1: Revised Requirements for Stakeholder Consultation in Fishery Assessments, dated 23 February 2010), changes to the process of stakeholder consultation have been made to improve the quality and consistency of stakeholder consultation in the fishery assessment process without adding significant time or cost. It does so primarily by ensuring that current best-practice among certification bodies (CBs) is consistently applied across all assessments and CBs. The directive responds directly to specific concerns that have surfaced from a variety of stakeholders about their experiences engaging in MSC fishery assessments.

Whilst this Directive became effective on 1 May 2010, the site visits were conducted in February 2010, before TAB-D-029 was released. Notes were taken during meetings with stakeholders by the assessment team, but formal minutes were not compiled and agreed following these meetings, with two exceptions. These exceptions were the meetings with anglers and commercial fishermen that were held in Swansea. Following these meetings, the assessment team compiled and agreed some meeting notes. These notes are appended in sections 19.1.1 and 19.1.2 below.

The information supplied by these and other stakeholders has been incorporated in this report. The main issues of concern raised during stakeholder consultation were:-

 Discarding small bass – there were concerns about the levels of discarding of small bass (under the MLS in various areas) from the trawl fishery. There were concerns that this was due to fishing with trawls in inshore areas where smaller bass were found.

 Stock status – a range of views were expressed about the status of the bass stock. There were concerns about localised depletion of the stock in response to fishing by trawlers in the area, and also worries about the overall status of the west coast bass stock.

 Antisocial behaviour – stakeholders from the recreational and commercial bass fishing sector from other parts of the Bristol Channel were very concerned about anti-social and potentially dangerous behaviour directed towards them by one or more vessels from the unit of certification fleet.

These issues were carefully examined during the assessment of the fishery. Discarding of small bass has been addressed in the scoring of Performance Indicators 1.2.2 (Harvest Control Rules & Tools), and 3.2.1 (Fishery Specific Objectives). Stock status has been considered in the assessment of PI 1.1.1. Where considered necessary, conditions have been raised to address these issues.

FN 82061 v4 Page 131 19.1.1 Notes of meeting with Angling representatives

The notes of this meeting are set out below. Some information was provided by anglers in response to our requests, and this is shown in Table 4 of this report.

BRISTOL CHANNEL BASS AND RAY TRAWL FISHERIES

Marine Stewardship Council Fishery Assessment

Note of Key Issues: Meeting with Anglers Swansea, 11th February 2010

This is a brief note of the key issues that were raised in the stakeholder meeting with anglers for this fishery assessment. The purpose of circulating this note is to check that we have identified the main issues of concern and to encourage you to share information with us that will help us to complete an accurate and balanced assessment of the fishery.

1. Bass  Bass are felt to be less abundant and smaller in the Bristol Channel than they were in the 1980s, with a marked decline over the past 5-10 years. A wide range of views were expressed, all covering the same key points:- o There are fewer fish generally o There are fewer large fish (reports varied, but in essence, fish over 5lb in weight were common 10 years ago, but are now unusual) o The abundance of fish in the 32-26cm range also seems to have fallen o The operations of trawlers on inshore banks has dramatically depleted the stocks in those areas. o There is concern about the effects of all commercial fishing on bass – mainly trawling but also gill netting.  Trawling (by one vessel in particular) on inshore banks is carried out in a manner that jeopardises the safety of anglers. It was reported that this vessel targets aggregations of vessels and tows through them.  New management measures are felt to be needed, in particular with respect to the legislation that allows larger trawlers to operate inside the SWSFC District.  The decline in bass size and abundance has resulted in fewer anglers fishing in the area and has put at least one charter angling vessel out of business.  Reports in the media by the NDFA suggest that a high proportion (up to 65%) of bass may be discarded by trawlers operating in the area. Dead undersized fish have been seen floating in the sea and cast up on the beach.  There are concerns about the level of enforcement activity in the area and the extent of “blackfish” landings.  Other factors are also causing concern, notably dredging for aggregates in the Bristol Channel and climatic effects – (cold winter weather and high rainfall).

2. Rays  In discussion about Rays, the general feeling was that thornback rays were less abundant but that the abundance of small eyed rays was relatively stable.

3. What next? We will be writing up the fishery assessment report over the next few weeks. We’ll be using CEFAS reports and official landing data, and any other reliable and relevant information that we can access. We are therefore keen to learn more from you, such as:-  Your views – have we missed any key points? Please let us know.

FN 82061 v4 Page 132  Your data – have you got any information that could help us to reach a balanced outcome in our assessment? We would be particularly interested in any or all of the following:- o Catch records – annual summaries of the total number of bass / rays caught at specific locations o Size records - the largest bass / rays caught annually at specific locations - the relative abundance of bass / rays smaller and larger than the MLS

4. Deadline If you have any further views or information that you would like to share with us, please send it (by post or e- mail) to us by Friday 26th March 2010. We may need to verify the authenticity of information, so please make sure that you give us your contact details.

If you have any queries, please get in touch with us (details below).

JIM ANDREWS & MIKE PAWSON Assessors

Correspondence to:- [email protected] 3 Beresford Road, Windermere, Cumbria, LA23 2JG Tel: 0845-880-2540

 We would like to collate information from different people to build up an overall picture. Annual summaries of the number and maximum size of fish caught at specific locations will help us to match like with like. All information provided will be treated in confidence. Publication of information provided will follow successful analysis and validation of the data.

FN 82061 v4 Page 133 19.1.2 Notes of meeting with Commercial Fishing representatives

A note of the meeting on 11th February 2010 with commercial fishermen was circulated to the meeting participants. Some amendments were made to these notes in response to feedback. The amended notes are reproduced below. Some landings data were provided to the team by the commercial sector, which is consistent with the pattern of changing landings illustrated in Table 2.

BRISTOL CHANNEL BASS AND RAY TRAWL FISHERIES

Marine Stewardship Council Fishery Assessment

Note of Key Issues: Meeting with Commercial Fishermen Swansea, 11th February 2010 [Amended Draft incorporating feedback from SWWFC]

This is a brief note of the key issues that were raised in the stakeholder meeting with commercial fishermen for this fishery assessment. The purpose of circulating this note is to check that we have identified the main issues of concern and to encourage you to share information with us that will help us to complete an accurate and balanced assessment of the fishery. 1. Overall  South & West Wales Fishing Communities (SWWFC) has 135 members  Over the past 12 years, bass and ray abundance and sizes have declined, in conjunction with fishing in the area by larger North Devon trawlers inshore. SWWFC has petitioned WAG about this issue.  Trawling for both bass and rays was felt to be unselective. The 80mm cod-ends typically used in the fishery retain a lot of smaller fish, particularly when towed at higher speeds.  There are concerns about the survival of fish from the trawling process. Discarded rays are thought to be unlikely to survive; and there are doubts about the survival of either discarded bass or those that escape through the mesh of the net (a South Wales SFC study raises concerns about bass survival if they lose scales).  There is concern that if the fishery is MSC certified, it will attract more fishing effort to this fishery and that there are no mechanisms in place (such as a TAC) to regulate this increase in effort or its effects. This is likely to increase the number of fish taken by the North Devon fleet with a corresponding decrease in fishing opportunities for others.  It was noted that the NDFA resisted proposals to increase the MLS for bass, and that their seasonal No Take Zone is located in an area that only larger vessels (such as the NDFA trawlers) are able to fish, and that it is open to fishing at the times of year when they customarily fished that area. The NDFA has also made public statements raising concerns about the levels of discarding from trawl fisheries in the Bristol Channel.  There has been a 70% reduction in the South Wales trawl fleet in the past 5 years, associated with the decline in fish stocks in the area generally. 2. Bass  In the opinion of the SWWFC the abundance and size of bass in the Bristol Channel have declined over the past 12 years.  The practice of fishing inshore banks with a trawl in recent years is felt to have had a dramatic local effect. Key concerns were: o Targeting fish aggregations on banks, using other commercial fishermen and anglers as indicators or fish aggregations; o A practice of making successive short tows without emptying the cod end of the trawl, resulting in a longer overall tow time and high and dead discards; o Catch rates of juvenile fish, even on offshore banks; o The average size of bass seems to have fallen  There are about 80 rod and line vessels fishing for bass from Swansea to Tenby and they are finding it

FN 82061 v4 Page 134 increasingly difficult to earn a living from bass (some have switched to fishing for other species instead).  Dead undersized fish have been seen floating in the sea in areas where trawlers have been operating, and have been washed ashore.  There was interest in the results of a recent study carried out with the NDFA and Cefas concerning the effectiveness of Square Mesh Panels in bass trawl fisheries. In the opinion of SWWFC these panels are ineffective in relation to reducing discards and discard mortality in the bass and ray fisheries.  Trawl fishermen operating in the area with 90mm cod ends report catches of juvenile (

If you have any queries, please get in touch with us (details below).

JIM ANDREWS & MIKE PAWSON Assessors

Correspondence to:- [email protected] 3 Beresford Road, Windermere, Cumbria, LA23 2JG

 We would like to collate information from different people to build up an overall picture. Annual summaries of the number and maximum size of fish caught at specific locations will help us to match like with like. All information provided will be treated in confidence. Publication of information provided will follow successful analysis and validation of the data.

FN 82061 v4 Page 135 Tel: 0845-880-2540

19 .2 Written submissions

19.2.1 Comments on the assessment Written submissions and e-mails have been received from a number of stakeholders and from the client during the course of this assessment. These have supported and reinforced the views raised during the site visit and summarised above.

19.2.2 Comments on peer review team composition Written submissions were also received by the assessment team in response to the proposed peer reviewers for the fishery. Concerns were raised about the impartiality of one of the peer reviewers, Mr Neil Downes, who has worked for the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee.

The assessment team discussed these concerns with the stakeholders who had raised them. After carefully considering the objections, it was felt that it was most appropriate to retain Mr Downes on the peer review team because of his unrivalled knowledge of the management of this fishery.

19.2.3 Comments on Public Comment Draft Report One set of comments was received on the Public Comment Draft Report. In summary, the respondent and their comments were :-

 The Marine Stewardship Council, who commented on some aspects of the Traceability aspects of the fishery, documentation of the stakeholder consultation process used in the RBF assessment, and the scoring of discarded species using the PSA methodology.

The assessment team has considered these comments carefully. They are appended in their entirety in the following pages, along with the team’s response. Changes have been made to the report where the assessment team considers they were necessary.

FN 82061 v4 Page 136 FN 82061 v4 Page 137 FN 82061 v4 Page 138 FN 82061 v4 Page 139 19.2.4 MML Response to Comments

FN 82061 v4 Page 140 FN 82061 v4 Page 141 FN 82061 v4 Page 142 FN 82061 v4 Page 143 20 REGISTERED COMPANIES / VESSELS WITHIN UNIT OF CERTIFICATION: ELIGIBLE TO SELL MSC CERTIFIED PRODUCT

Not Applicable.

FN 82061 v4 Page 144