sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cerastoderma, Cerastoderma glaucum, Common cockle, Venerupis philippinarum

AND FISHERY FROM RIA DE AROUSA

PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT REPORT NEW VERSION!

CLIENT: SOCIEDAD COOPERATIVA GALLEGA DE AROUSA Portomouro, Abanqueiro. 15938, Boiro - La Coruña- Date 19th March 2013

BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION Le Guillaumet 60 avenue du Général de Gaulle 92046 PARIS LA DEFENSE Cedex – Jacobo De Nóvoa Bureau Veritas Spanish Office Avda Finisterre 265 C 2ª Planta 15008 A Coruña, Spain [email protected] PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 1 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Contents

1. Executive Summary ...... 4 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 7 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 9 3.1. Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought ...... 9 3.2. Overview of the fishery ...... 12 3.4. Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 26 3.5. Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 36 4. Evaluation Procedure ...... 51 4.1. Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 51 4.2. Previous assessments ...... 51 4.3. Assessment Methodologies ...... 51 4.4. Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 52 5. Traceability ...... 60 5.2. Traceability within the Fishery ...... 60 6. Evaluation Results ...... 63 6.1. Principle Level Scores ...... 63 6.2. Summary of Conditions ...... 71 References ...... 73 Appendices ...... 90 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 90 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...... 166 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 186 Appendix 2 Peer Review Report ...... 190 Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions ...... 237

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 2 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Glossary

AGAMAR Asociación Gallega de Mariscadoras/es (Galician Association of Shell-fishermen) ASI Accreditation Services International BC Biologist of the Cooperative BVC Bureau Veritas Certification CAB Conformity Assessment Body CIMA Centro de Investigacións Mariñas (Centre for Marine Research) CMRM Consellería do Medio Rural e do Mar (Department for the Countryside and Sea) CPUE Catch per unit effort index CSIC Centro Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (Centre for Advanced Scientific Research) DOGA Diario Oficial de (Galician Official Gazette) DXIDP Dirección Xeral de Innovación e Desenvolvemento Pesqueiro (Directorate-General for Innovation and Fisheries Development) ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected HCR Harvest Control Rules HP Harvesting Plan HS Harvesting Strategy IEO Instituto Español de Oceanografía (Spanish Institute for Oceanography) IPIMAR Instituto de Investigação das Pescas e do Mar (Institute for investigation of fisheries and the sea) ITECMAR Instituto Tecnolóxico Mariño (Institute for Marine Technology) JMP Join Management Plan MC Management committe MLS Minimum Landing Size MP Management Plan MSC Marine Stewardship Council MT Metric ton NM Nautic miles NO Noroeste (Northwest) OIA Organización Internacional Agropecuaria (International Agricultural Organisation) PI Performance indicator PSA Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis PERMEX Permiso de explotación (Harvesting permit) RBF Risk-Based assessment Framework SEPRONA Servicio Protección de la Naturaleza (Service for the Protection of Nature) SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats TA Technical Assistance TURF Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries UC Unit of Certification XT Xefatura Territorial (Territorial Headquarters)

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 3 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

1. Executive Summary The audit team that will conduct the assessment process against the MSC standard is composed of the following members. On behalf of the accreditation body BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION, as project coordinator Jacobo de Novoa, Director of Fisheries and , Bureau Veritas Agrofood; Xaviere Lagadec, MSC Technical manager and Macarena García Silva as Technical assistant. The expert team that has been chosen on the basis of their experience in the areas of stock assessment, ecosystem interactions and fishery management, is Miguel José Baptista Gaspar, Principle 1 and 2 assessor, Antonio García Allut as Principle 3 assessor. In 2009, the Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ría de Arousa , located in Abanqueiro, La Coruña (Galicia- Spain), motivated by the partners commitment to sustainability, successfully concluded a pre- assessment with regard to the MSC standard with the certification entity OIA. Two years later, thanks to funds from the Resources Legacy Fund , an American foundation, they have been able to enter into a full assessment vis à vis the MSC standard. In this case they have chosen BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION as the Certification Body. Public notice regarding the launch of the MSC Certification Program for the Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria de Arousa was given in September 2011. This was followed by a series of notices posted on the MSC website in order to report all phases that were taking place. First to be published was the tasks schedule, see Preliminary Assessment timeline , and the proposal and subsequent confirmation of the Assessment team . In the next stage of the assessment, Bureau Veritas announced the use of the Default Assessment Tree contained within the MSC Certification Requirements V1.2. issued in January 2012 in the independent assessment of this Fishery. In this communication it was notified to the stakeholders the consideration of this fishery as an enhanced fishery in two ways: Habitat Modified Fishery due to works on substrate carried on to increase production and Hatch and Catch Fishery due to hatchery activities for two species. In addition, the need to consider some elements of the assessment under the MSC’s Risk-Based assessment Framework (RBF) , in particular the 1.1.1. stock status, 2.2.1. By-catch (discarded) species, 2.4.1. Habitats and 2.5.1. Ecosystems were identified. Finally, it was also necessary to notified the used of an additional performance indicators concerning the outcome, management and information that will enable the assessment of the potential effect of the fisheries on pullet carpet shell and manila genetics (HAC fishery for these two species). To start with the evaluation of the fishery compliance with the International Standard MSC, it was necessary to open an information search process regarding their 3 Principles. During the 10 th week of the year (6th to 9th March 2012) the Visit Assessment with selected organizations or individuals with a direct interest in this fishery was announced. These visits were attended by Wetjens Dimmlich and Carolina Romero of Accreditation Services International (ASI) who supervised the tasks carried out by BVC. To outline the tasks carried out and those that are unresolved the current assessment timeline was published (See Figure 1):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 4 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Figure 1 Assessment timeline (2 th November 2012) Prior to the site visit, the stakeholders involved in the fishery were contacted by telephone and subsequently by email in order to gather information on the fishery which had been previously identified as necessary by the experts (see subsection 4.4.1). The first of March 2012, was published on the MSC website the Confirmation of Assessment Tree , with the information bellow: • Additional Performance Indicators concerning the outcome, management and information that will enable the assessment of the potential effect of the fisheries on pullet carpet shell and manila clam genetics (See Appendix 1.1: Tables 1.1.4, 1.2.5 and 1.2.6) • Elements of the assessment under the MSC’s Risk-Based assessment Framework (RBF). (See subsection 4.4.3) • Additional Performance Indicators that will enable the assessment of the potential effect of the , manila clam ( philippinarum ), on the ecosystem. (See Appendix 1.1: Tables 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) For those parts of the assessment involving the RBF, the audit team used a stakeholder-driven, qualitative analysis during the site visit on the 26 th June . For the scoring meeting the audit team worked together on the 27 th and 28 th June at BVC office (Vigo, Spain). Owing to the complexity of the fishery and with the aim of arriving at an accurate assessment in accordance with the RBF for the 4 species audited, it was necessary to convene an additional meeting of the parties involved, which was held at the main office of the Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa on September 5 th , 2012 . Those present at the meetings appear in Appendix 3 Stakeholders submissions. It was decided in consensus with stakeholders, from the results obtained at the abovementioned meeting, that a modification was needed in terms of the behavioral indicators assessed before the RBF. This modification was noted with the MSC without any need to publish it on the web; the comprehensive explanation of this change and, as such, the analysis before the RBF will be presented in the relevant section (See point 4.3.) Regarding the MSC technical oversight (see pages 214-223) some issues were changed, therefore a new version of the PCDR was puplished after another Peer Reviewer evaluation.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 5 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The strengths and weaknesses that support this assessment process are as follows: Strengths • The fishermen in this certifying unit are part of a private organization termed as “Cooperativa Gallega Ría de Arousa ” (Cooperative). • The fishing activity in the -harvesting authorization zone Punta Portomouro Punta Pedra Rubio is exclusive to partners of the Cooperative who are Permex holders. • Fishing techniques used are those with low impact, and are highly selective. • Control and monitoring of the fishing activity is effective and continuous. • Harvesting plans, into which scientific and technical elements are incorporated, are reviewed annually. • Daily follow-up of the fishery by the Biologist of the Cooperative (BC). • The product is of high quality and therefore has a high first sale value. • 24-hour surveillance system and back-up of this surveillance by the Cooperative’s partners. Weakneness • Proxies for the state of the stock of the commercial species are not defined. • The fishery is subject to the impact of various factors that are abiotic in nature (water temperature variations; salinity variations by precipitation; marine and fluvial currents contributing to the silting of productive zones, and so forth) that can negatively impact the fishery’s output because they can cause massive mortality in both juveniles and adults. • There are no studies regarding the impact of the exotic species on the ecosystem and native species of Ria de Arousa which difficults the assessement of hatch and grow fisheries. • Complexity at the time of applying the assessment requirements of the MSC for this type of mollusc fishery, which moreover is an enhanced fishery and one of the species is invasive. The assessment team and Certification Body Bureau Veritas have reached the consensus judgment within the cockles and clams fishery from Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega de Arousa complies with the MSC Principles and Criteria. Therefore, BV concludes as a draft determination that the fishery is recommended for an MSC Fishery certificate. The CAB firstly set two conditions for certification regarding the IP 2.5.3. Ecosystem information and monitoring, and IP 2.5.2M. Ecosystem Management strategy. In this PCDR New Version the Conditions were set as follows: - Condition 1 for PI 2.2.3 & 2.5.3.M - Condition 2 for PI 2.5.2. M The information of the Conditions can be found in points 6.2 and Appendix 1.3. To be awarded an MSC certificate for the fishery, the applicants must agree in a written contract to develop an Action Plan for meeting the 'Conditions' issued by the audit team.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 6 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers

ASSESSMENT TEAM: Jacobo De Novoa , person in charge and coordinator of the fishery's assessment process. Oceanographer, PhD in Marine Biology and Aquaculture, Masters in Total Quality. He has been Director of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture at BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION España since 2006. He is in charge of the technical implementation of all certification schemes for fisheries products in Spain, and MSC chief auditor. He is qualified to carry out pre-assessments and full assessments and has carried out assessments in several around the world. He is also auditor for other standards such as Friend of the Sea, IFS, BRC, Globalgap Aquaculture, ISO 22000 and many private standards relating to the fisheries sector (DOP Mejillón de Galicia, NATUR, Gamba de Palamós, PescadeRias, etc). As the Risk Based Framework (RBF) is needed for assessment, Jacobo de Novoa has participated in training through the MSC by means of CB Training in 2009 and 2011. To download a detailed CV click on the following link Antonio García Allut , Principal 3 assessor. Bachelor in Philosophy, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. PhD in Social Anthropology, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Main research areas: traditional fisheries, fishery management, resources management and conservation, commercialization, organic traditional knowledge, participative methodologies, bottom-up process. He had been the main researcher of several projects related to the management of resources and fisheries in Galicia, seafood processing and the integration of organic traditional knowledge in fishery management systems. He was president of Lonxanet Foundations for Sustainable ; he has participated on the development of the marine reserve of Os Miñarzos (Lira, Galicia) and has experience working in Latin American countries. He is member of the Scientific Committee of the Maritime Museum of Galicia, Associate member of the ICSF (International Collective in Support of Fishworkers), member of Avina Foundation (sustainable development of Latin America), a fellow of Fundación Ashoka, etc. He has been working on most of this research and project activities after 1993, when he got his PhD on research about traditional fisheries and fishery management, aiming to look for better efficiency in the management of traditional fisheries. To download a detailed CV click on the following link Miguel José Baptista Gaspar , Principle 1 and 2 assessor. He is a Senior Researcher at the Portuguese Institute for Fisheries and Sea Research (IPIMAR) of the National Institute of Biological Resources (INRB). In 1990, he completed a degree in marine biology and fisheries at the University of Algarve () and undertook his PhD at the same university, where he studied several aspects related to the bivalve dredge fishery that occurs along the south of Portugal (biology and ecology of the target species, selectivity, and fishing gears impacts). After completing his PhD in 1997, he worked for IPIMAR as a fellowship researcher and became a permanent member of scientific staff in 1999. Currently, he is responsible for the management of the bivalve fishery in Portugal and heads the Invertebrate Small-scale Fisheries Research Group of IPIMAR. He has been the coordinator of several research projects regarding the ecological effects of artisanal fishing and other anthropogenic impacts on marine ecosystems, aiming to provide policy makers with the scientific information to PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 7 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 best manage the marine environment and fish stocks. Presently, he his coordinator of the European project “Sustainable development of artisanal fisheries in the Atlantic Area”. He is the author or co- author of more than 100 publications in international peer-reviewed journals and book chapters. He is a member of the editorial board of Scientia Marina. To download a detailed CV click on the following link PEER REVIEWERS: Dr Andrew Brand , holds a PhD and has worked for the University of Liverpool for 40 years on the academic staff of the Port Erin Marine Laboratory, Isle of Man, retiring in 2006 as Director of the Laboratory. During this time he developed large, well-funded, research programs on the biology, ecology, aquaculture and fisheries of bivalve molluscs, especially , and on the environmental impact of dredging. He has had extensive fishery management and environmental assessment consultancy experience, including contracts with government departments and industry, and has been a member of ICES Working Groups on herring, scallops and ecosystem effects of fishing. In addition to work in the Irish Sea, he has advised on scallops and fisheries management in Alaska, Argentina, Australia, Bermuda, Chile, , France and the . He is now an Honorary Senior Fellow of the University of Liverpool and works as an independent shellfisheries consultant. He has recent experience as an Assessor and Independent Reviewer for Marine Stewardship Council certifications for scallop, and fisheries in the Irish Sea, Faeroes, Denmark and Canada. Mr Bert Keus , is an independent consultant based in Leiden, the . He holds degrees in biology and law, and has previously held the position of Head of the Environmental Division of the Dutch Fisheries Board (Productschap Vis), and research fellow with the fisheries division of the Agricultural Economics Research Institute of Holland (LEI-DLO). During the years 2003 and 2004 he managed fishing and processing companies in the Gambia handling fish from industrial and artisanal fisheries, and he maintains his contacts with the Gambian seafood industry. In addition, he has a long association with shellfisheries, and is currently involved in the MSC assessment of the North Sea brown shrimp fishery, acting as technical advisor to this multi-stakeholder initiative, and sitting on the project’s management board. Through his work and several other MSC certifications he has become particularly familiar with the MSC certification process. Between the years 1998 and 2003 he was a member of the European Sustainable Uses Specialist Group (ESUSG), Fisheries Working Group of the IUCN.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 8 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

3. Description of the Fishery

3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought

The CAB has reviewed the pre-assessment report (OIA 2009) and other information available concluding the suitability on choosing the Units of Certification (UC), as being in conformity with the MSC Principles. For this full-assessment report there are multiple Units of Certification. In the first instance four target species are assessed: edule - Cockle Venerupis decussata – – Manila clam Venerupis corrugata – Pullet carpet shell

Secondly the fishermen use two fishing methods: • Harvest on foot: grubber hoe, small hand rake, bullrake (similar to hand-dredge but with a distinct retention system) and rakes. • onboard with hand devices: bullrake. In conclusion, the fishery proposed for MSC certification is therefore defined as: 8 Units of Certification: UC01 Cerastoderma edule collected on foot with hand devices UC02 Cerastoderma edule collected onboard with hand devices UC03 Venerupis decussata collected on foot with hand devices UC04 Venerupis decussata collected onboard with hand devices UC05 Venerupis philippinarum collected on foot with hand devices UC06 Venerupis philippinarum collected onboard with hand devices UC07 Venerupis corrugata collected on foot with hand devices UC08 Venerupis corrugata collected onboard with hand devices

Stock : Ría de Arousa (Galicia, NW España) Fishing area : 27 FAO zone. North Atlantic. IX a CIEM area. Ría de Arousa (Galicia, NO España; 42º44´ and 4º.68´ of latitude N and 9º05´ and 8º77´ of longitude W), Punta Portomouro to Punta Pedra Rubia Area. Fisheries management : The fishery activities are managed by Galicia’s Regional Fisheries Government: Consellería do Medio Rural o de Mar da Xunta de Galicia (CMRM). Fishers group : Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ría de Arosa . Point of landing : Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arous a (Abanqueiro, La Coruña). The client Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa is the only fishermen association that can operate in the shellfish beds of this area. Joining the Cooperative is compulsory for operations in said area, therefore there are no other fishermen who could possibly be a part of the UC.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 9 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

3.1.1 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries The determination from the assessment team whether the fishery concerned is within the MSC certification scope for enhanced fisheries is detailed below taking into consideration the criteria in Table C1 from the MSC Certification Requirements V 1.2 . For this fishery there are two human interventions related with Habitat Modified Fishery due to works on substrate carried on to increase production and Hatch and Catch Fishery due to the sowing of seed produced in hatchery. The enhancement activities inherent to both criteria aim to increase the production in the Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURF) under the administration of the Cooperative.

To begin with, the first criterion for enhanced fisheries is Habitat and ecosystem impact , due to works on substrate carried on to increase production. Enhancement activities that have an effect on sediment include: maintenance of the substrate; loose the substrate with grubber hoes and rakes; removal of dead seaweed; addition of sand in the subtidal area; using of nets to protect seed. The activities are described below:

1. Site preparation - This is a crucial phase to help the natural fixation of the larvae and to obtain the desired characteristics for good growth, survival and harvestability of the crop. This fishery step is not executed routinely but when the Cooperative technicians considers that the substrate is compressed, hard or with excessive organic load: a. A compressed or hard substrate, does not allow neither the natural settlement of the larvae nor the growth of mollusks. b. An excessive organic load decreases the production of the area.

This action consists in the turn-over of the sediment to improve its oxygenation and to obtain a loosely packed substrate.

2. Cleaning - With the exception of the winter period, in the Rías large amounts of dead seaweed are naturally deposited in the intertidal areas. This accumulation can lead to mass mortalities of the target species its decomposition produces a considerable amount of organic matter and deplects oxygen. Whenever huge mats of dead seaweed are seen in the TURF area an action plan is put in place to remove it by using rakes in the intertidal area and towing gear (similar to scallop dredges - without a tooth lower bar). See Figure 2.

Figure 2 Site preparation and cleaning activity. Source: Luis Santos (BC)

3. Sand addition: The sea currents and the winds that accompany the storms, can affect negatively the production of the area through the changing the substrate. In order to keep the adequate

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 10 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 substrate to support the target species populations, the substrate is modified by adding a new layer of sand. Grain sized characteristics correspond with the existing ones in the natural beds.

4. Seed protection nets: The seed produced in hatchery are transferred to four-five on-growing zones that occupy an area of around 20m 2 each. These zones are covered with a net in order to avoid higher mortalities due to predation. Nets are removed when shell lengths exceed 1 cm and juveniles are sowed in the on-growing area. See Figure 3.

Figure 3 Growing zone for seeds located in Punta Pedra Rubia. Source: Luis Santos

It is believed that all changes on habitat are reversible and do not cause serious or irreversible harm to the natural ecosystem‘s structure and function. Natural beds are not possible to be controlled regarding environmental conditions because they are no closed systems.

The RBF may enable the assessment team to most appropriately determine the relationship between the fishery and benthic habitats affected by it , (See point 4.4.3.).

In the case of the second criterion Hatch and Catch Fishery seed can be obtained from hatcheries or in their own park. In these latter cases, when high densities of seed are observed, fishers dig the clam seed with sand using a small shovel or grubber hue, pass it through a sieve to retain the seed, and spread it in order to decrease density augmenting, this way, the survival rate of the seed. When the seed comes from hatcheries, before being transferred to the ongrowing areas they are reared in nurseries. After attaining a size of 0,6mm the juveniles are then transposed to 3-4 specific zones within the TURF since it’s of utmost importance to maintain individuals burrowed in order to reduce the level of shell malformations (Abella et al., 2001). These areas are not fished until the clams reached the minimum landing size. The hatchery production strategies that are in place are believed to maintain the genetic structure of wild populations.

Regarding the scope criteria we refer to the criteria Feeding and husbandry . The hatchery for the two species considered Venerupis corrugata (pullet carpet shell) and Venerupis philippinarum (manila clam) is managed by Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ría de Arousa technicians and is located on the shore where the shellfish is fished (address: Portomouro s/n CP15938 Abanqueiro, La Coruña - Spain) sharing the facilities with the head office of Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa .

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 11 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Considering this, translocation of seed is quite simple and short distance. Broodstock comes from the same area and the induction of spawning is carried on controlled conditions.

In this case an Additional Performance Indicators concerning the outcome, management and information will enable the assessment of the potential effect of the fisheries on pullet carpet shell genetics will be included . This is not applied to the manila clam because is an exotic species and therefore all potential impacts that this species may cause in the ecosystem will be discussed separately.

3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) The determination from the assessment team whether the fishery concerned is within the MSC certification scope for ISBF is detailed below taking into consideration Annex CJ1 from the MSC Certification Requirements V 1.2. The species Venerupis philippinarum , as one of the species considered to entry on this full assessment is non-native from this area, however this species was introduced in Galicia before 1993 as reported in several research studies. This can be corroborated by analyzing production data over data. This species was introduced trough one Resources Management Plan from the Government called “ Plan Galicia ” in the 80´s. The production area started to fish this species in 1996, however was presented before but was not commercialized. In the other hand this specie has a large population size, has spread beyond Galicia and cannot be eradicated. The introduced species has a large population size (comparable to the population sizes of the other native species of clams occupying similar ecological niches). In the other side, Venerupis philippinarum has spread to a range beyond that of its initial introduction and now is present all over Galicia. We can consider as well that this specie cannot be eradicated from the location by known mechanisms without serious ecological, economic and/or social consequences. At this moment there is all kind of situation with this specie, mixed banks and monospecies banks. On the fishery considered for this certification the introduced species is managed in the same way than Venerupis corrugata with a hatchery which support wild production. The species hatched were not depleted and the hatchery operation does not form a major part of any rebuilding plan. Hatchery operations are done to guarantee enough captures on this area. It should be noted that these requirements do not apply to introduced species. To conclude, the assessment team decided to use an Additional Performance Indicators to enable the assessment of the potential effect of the introduced species, manila clam ( Venerupis philippinarum ), on the ecosystem.

3.2 Overview of the fishery

Sea/freshwater area Ría Arousa is the main one of the Rias in Galicia (four). Is located between 42.44 o and 42.68 o of latitude N and 9.05 and 8.77 o of longitude W, with a direction NESW, penetrating the coast of Galicia a length of about 33 km in direction SW-NE, See Figure 4. It owns two mouths, being the island of Salvora the cause of this separation, the North Mouth has about 3.5 km in width, from this island to Aguiño Point, is very brief and reach the 10 meters of depth. In comparison, mouth South has 4.5 km in width (from the island of Salvora to the peninsula of Or Grove) and it arrives until almost 70

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 12 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 meters of depth. The main fluvial water contribution comes from the Ulla River. All the Ria has an average volume of 4.5 x 109 m 3 and a total surface of 240 km 2. Ría Arousa is divided in three parts: The internal part includes the water to the East of the line that unites Punta do Chazo with the island of Arousa, and this characterized by the discharge it influences of waters of the Ulla River. The external part, under oceanic influence, includes the volume of water from the line that unites Ribeira and the S of the island of Arousa. The central part, located between the inner ones shares so much the effects of river as the due ones to the existing wind regime in the platform.

Figure 4 Freshwater area The Ría de Arousa is a very rich and biologically diverse river. This factor is due to its geomorphological complexity, and oceanic conditions, with a strong oceanic influence in the external part and the existence of upwelling and estuarian circulation, as well as its sediment configuration. All this allows the river to support the greatest fishing burden of all Galician rivers, in addition to the development of significant natural shellfish banks on it. Management operation The competitions in the matter of fishing operation belong to the Regional Government of Galicia: Xunta de Galicia (XT). It is the CMRM, the one in charge to develop the legal tools necessary to make a model of management of the fishing resources. As regards to shellfishing rights, the Galician coast is divided in territorial scopes belonging to professional groups (association of fishermen called Cofradías , associations of producers, cooperatives as this case,etc.), which have historical rights of operation of the located shellfish banks in their territorial area. Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa , from now on the Cooperative, is an organization, equipped with total legal personality in which the organization of the work of her associates is realised under a discipline hierarchized, as well as the qualification and specialization of its associates. To be partner it is required to be neighbouring or natural of the parish of Abanqueiro , as well as to fulfill the legal and statutory duties that later will be developed.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 13 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Regarding the fishery operation, annually the Cooperative settled down the proposals of the sector for the fishery management. This Plan of operation is elaborated by the Biologist of the Cooperative (BC) and approved by the managers of this body Consejo Rector . After its approval, the proposed operation plan is sent to the CMRM. The technicians from this body review and modify the proposed plan if necessary, before being approved by legislative order. In order for the fishermen to take part in the MP, they need to have a fishing license (PERMEX) which must be renewed every five years. Nowadays there are 420 members of the cooperative, with the rules of no more than 30 fishermen on shore (on foot) and no more than 30 on board on 15- 20 vessels, qualified to fish for the cockles and clams located in the area included in the management plan of this fishery. The harvesting techniques used in the fishery vary with the localizations of the beds. In intertidal flats the target species are harvested by hand or using rudimentary tools (See Figure 6). In these areas the harvester walks along the shore looking for holes. When a hole is found, the harvester picks the clam from the sediment with his hands or digs the clam out of the sediment using simple tools such rakes, forks, shovels or grubber hoes (Arnaiz & de Coo, 1977; Gaspar et al., 2012). In shallow subtidal areas (ranging between 0.3 and 1.5 m depth) bullraking is the technique used. Bullrakes have a metallic frame with a toothed lower bar. Clams are retained in metallic basket. The mouth of the gear is welded to metal pool. This pool ends in a T-shaped handle to help its operation during harvesting. In bullraking, the rake is positioned on the sediment surface with the tines pointing down. Then, the fisherman pushes the teeth into the sediment and pulls the rake towards him with short, quick jerks, forcing the entrance of clams into the basket (Gaspar et al ., 2012). Bullrakes are also operated from boats in order to exploit deeper clam beds. In this case, the pool used is much longer and might attain 5 m length (Arnaiz & de Coo, 1977; Gaspar et al ., 2012). See Figures 7 & 8.

Figure 5 Harvest on foot in Punta Portomouro. Source: Luis Santos (BC)

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 14 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Figure 6 Fishing techniques and hand devices: grubber hoe and bullrake. Source: Antonio Aggat and Macarena García.

Figure 7 Onboard techniques and bullrake device. Internet sources The fishery under assessment includes populations of four clam species: Venerupis decussata, Venerupis corrugata, Venerupis philippinarum, Cerastoderma edule . The clams lives burrowed in sand, muddy sand and silty mud. They are lamellibranches bivalves mollusc that filters water through its two siphons catching organic matter (detritus) and as food. The gills are two pairs of plates composed of filaments. Historical fishing levels There are 1,134 production areas in Galicia of clams and cockles, of which about 988 are located in Carril ( Vilagarcía de Arousa ), in regime of administrative concession to private organizations. The market of clams in Spain is in more than 30,000 Metric ton (Mt), and Galician statistics give 4,000 productions of one metric ton, to which, adding the production of the parks, we could arrive at 7,000 or 8,000 Mt. According to the Harvesting Plan (HP) for authorizations: Shellfish harvesting on foot/onboard (Management Plan) for 2012 prepared by the Cooperative, the production data obtained in kilograms per species throughout the years (since 2002) is as follows:

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 15 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

20.000

18.000

16.000

14.000

12.000

10.000

8.000 PRODUCCIÓN PRODUCCIÓN ANUAL (KG)

6.000

4.000

2.000

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Sp Babosa 19.180,00 6.107,00 2.998,50 2.814,00 424 3.965,00 5.400,40 11.273,00 8.525,50 2.984,00 8.000,00 Sp Fina 349 1.987,00 2.964,50 1.282,10 1.033,70 1.873,30 2.375,70 1.576,50 2.132,00 1.951,50 2.000,00 Sp Japonesa 1.951,50 5.034,00 6.082,00 5.378,50 3.550,00 10.016,00 12.068,00 2.213,00 6.011,00 5.009,00 7.000,00 Sp Berberecho 5.545,00 4.824,50 8.001,50 2.398,50 3.149,00 7.177,50 10.974,40 2.909,00 443 618,5 2.000,00 Figure 8: Annual production by the Cooperative (Kg) from 2002 to 2012 of the different species audited. Source: CMRM Next is shown the average price per kilogram of each of the species and the variation it has experienced throughout the years:

Venerupis corrugada

Producción (Kg) Precio (€/Kg)

20.000,00 16,00 € 19.180,00

14,00 €

15.000,00 12,00 €

10,00 € 11.273,00

10.000,00 8,00 € 8.525,50 8.000,00

6,00 € 6.107,00 5.400,40 5.000,00 4,00 € 3.965,00

2.998,50 2.814,00 2.984,00 2,00 €

424 0,00 0,00 € 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 16 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Ruditapes decussatus

Producción (Kg) Precio (€/Kg)

3.500,00 60,00 €

2.964,50 3.000,00 50,00 €

2.500,00 2.375,70 40,00 € 2.132,00 1.987,00 1.951,50 2.000,00 2.000,00 1.873,30

30,00 € 1.576,50 1.500,00 1.282,10

1.033,70 20,00 € 1.000,00

10,00 € 500,00 349

0,00 0,00 € 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Ruditapes phillippinarum

Producción (Kg) Precio (€/Kg)

14,00 € 12.068,00 12.000,00 12,00 € 10.016,00 10.000,00 10,00 €

8.000,00 7.000,00 8,00 €

6.082,00 6.011,00 6.000,00 5.378,50 5.034,00 5.009,00 6,00 €

4.000,00 3.550,00 4,00 €

2.213,00 1.951,50 2.000,00 2,00 €

0,00 0,00 € 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Cerastodema edule

Producción (Kg) Precio (€/Kg)

12.000,00 8,00 € 10.974,40

7,00 € 10.000,00

6,00 € 8.001,50 8.000,00 7.177,50 5,00 €

6.000,00 5.545,00 4,00 € 4.824,50 3,00 € 4.000,00 3.149,00 2.909,00 2.398,50 2,00 € 2.000,00 2.000,00 1,00 € 443 618,5

0,00 0,00 € 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 9 Evolution of the price per kilogram since 2002. Source: CMRM PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 17 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background

The species nomenclature was revised following the well-known and freely available database WoRMS (Appeltans et al., 2011). Although the currently valid designation was adopted, the original nomenclature was kept unchanged in the respective sources of information (bibliographic references). The name adopted for each species under assessment in the present report was as follows: • Cockle: Cerasterma edule (= Cardium edule ) • Grooved carpet shell: Venerupis decussata (= Ruditapes decussatus ; = Tapes decussatus ) • Manila clam: Venerupis philippinarum (= Ruditapes philippinarum ; = Venus philippinarum ) • Pullet carpet clam: Venerupis corrugata (= Venerupis senegalensis ; = Venerupis pullastra )

3.3.1 Biology of the target species

KINGDOM Animalia PHYLUM CLASS SUBCLASS ORD ER Veneroida FAMILY Cardiidae Cerastoderma SPECIES Cerastoderma edule COMMON NAME Sp. - Berberecho En.- Cockle

Shell description The shell is solid, thick, equivalve, inequilateral, globular and broadly oval in outline; up to 5 cm long but usually less. Shell sculptured with 22-28 radiating ribs each with numerous scale-like flat spines, crossed by conspicuous concentric ridges. Growth lines are prominent. The pallial line lacks a sinus. Both valves with two cardinal teeth and the right bear two anterior and two posterior lateral teeth while the left valve bears a single anterior and posterior lateral. Margin crenulate with crenulations running inside the shell but fading before reaching the pallial line (Tebble, 1986; Macedo et al ., 1999). Shell colour The colour varies from white through cream and yellow to dark brown. Some individuals may be patterned with small dots of blue, brown or red near the umbos (Poppe & GoTo, 1993). Inner surfaces dull white stained brown on and about the posterior adductor scar (Tebble, 1966). Distribution and habitat The cockle ( Cerastoderma edule ) is one of the most common and widely distributed bivalve species on tidal flats along the coast of most of European countries. Its distribution area extends from the Barent Sea and the Baltic to the Iberian Peninsula south to Mauritania, into the Mediterranean, The Black and Caspian Seas (Tebble, 1966; Poppe & GoTo, 1993). This species lives just under the bottom surface burrowing to a depth of no more than 5 cm, on sand, mud and gravel bottoms from PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 18 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 intertidal to only a few m deep (Tebble, 1966; Poppe & GoTo, 1993). It is common in bays, coastal lagoons and . Usually live at salinities between 15 -35 but can tolerate salinities as low as 10. The density of populations can be extremely high: up to 10.000 per square meter have been counted (Poppe & GoTo, 1993). Reproduction Cerastoderma edule is a dioecious and gonochoric species. In general, gametogenesis starts in February/ March followed by rapid gonad development in April and May with spawning occurring around May to July/August after which a resting phase takes place usually between October and March (e.g. Seed & Brown, 1977; Newell & Bayne, 1980; Guillou et al ., 1990; Cardoso et al ., 2009). C. edule either undergoes a single spawning event in a short space of time (Kingston, 1974) or can undertake ‘polycyclic’ spawning without a resting period (Yankson, 1986). According to Ducrotoy et al . (1991) spawning is clearly influenced by the physical environment, being triggered by the sudden rise of the temperature, more than an absolute value of it. Eggs are only viable for 4–8 hours post- release (André & Lindegarth, 1995). Larval development in the pelagic phase taking around 3 to 5 weeks (Lebour, 1938; Hancock, 1973). Although the sexual maturity is generally reached during the second year at a size length of around 12 mm shell length for males and 14 mm SL for females (Hancock & Franklin, 1972; Seed & Brown, 1977), some authors have noticed a reproduction during the first year (Seed & Brown, 1977). Therefore, it seems that, sexual maturity depends on the size more than the age of individuals (Kristensen, 1957; Handcock & Franklin, 1972; Sauriau, 1992). In Galicia the reproductive cycle of C. edule was studied by analysis gonad smears (Figueras, 1957; González & Pérez-Camacho, 1984, Mejuto 1984a,b; Pérez Camacho & Román, 1984) or by applying histological techniques (Villalba García et al ., 2001; Martinez & Vasquez, 2012). Martinez & Vasquez (2012) reported that in Ría de Vigo, the onset of gametogenesis took place at the end of the summer (September to October), progressed throughout the winter, and the mature stage was reached in spring. The first spawning occurred in April and May and, after gonad restoration, another spawning episode took place in May and June. During the summer (July and August), most of the population showed signs of gonad exhaustion, although a less-intensive spawning event was observed at the end of summer and beginning of autumn probably due to a phytoplankton bloom, which acted as a stimulus for spawning. A similar reproductive pattern was observed for cockle populations from Ria Muros and Noia. Gametogenesis started in the winter reached the ripe stage at the end of March. Spawning occurred during the spring and summer followed by a resting period in the autumn (Villalba García et al ., 2001). Age and growth Growth in Cerastoderma edule shows a marked seasonal pattern (Seed & Brown, 1977; Hancock & Franklin, 1972). In the Wadden Sea the growing season takes place between April and August- September with a negligible growth during winter (Jensen, 1992; Dorges, 1992; Rámon, 2003). A similar growing season was found for cockle populations in the French Atlantic coast (Guillou & Tartu, 1994; Sauriau & Kang, 2000). The growth season may be related to the cycle of phytoplankton (Rámon, 2003). Molares et al . (2001) studied the growth of Cerastoderma edule from three areas in the Ria Arousa (Rianxo, Boiro and Muros). They observed that growth is faster during the 2-3 years of life until attaining the maximum length. The asymptotic length (L∞) esmated for the three populations were 37.01mm, 37,67mm and 43.31 for Rianxo, Boiro and Muros, respectively. The growth rate (k) estimated was slightly higher in Boiro (K=0.11) than in the other two areas (k=0.09 for Rianxo; k=0.06 for Muros). These differences may be related to the local environmental conditions (Molares et al ., 2001). Longevity has been estimated to be in excess of 6 years for some populations, although with mortality events and poor growth, this can often be reduced to 2–3 years maximum (Jelesias & Navarro, 1990; Jensen, 1992; Lindegarth et al ., 1995). PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 19 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Shell description The shell is solid, equivalve, inequilateral and is broadly oval or square in shape. Umbones distinctly anterior. Lunule elongated and heart-shaped but poorly defined. Sculpture of fine concentric striae and radiating ribs; prominent posteriorly, where the shell is conspicuously decussate. In each valve KINGDOM Animalia PHYLUM Mollusca CLASS Bivalvia SUBCLASS Heterodonta ORDER Veneroida FAMILY GENUS Venerupis SPECIES Venerupis decussata COMMON NAME Sp. - Almeja fina En.- Grooved carpet shell are presented three cardinal teeth of which one on the left and two on the right are bifid. Lateral teeth not presented. Pallial line and adductor scars distinct. The pallial sinus is relatively deep U- shaped not extending beyond midline of shell (Tebble, 1966, Macedo et al ., 1999). Shell colour Cream, yellowish, or light brown, often with darker markings such as rays, streaks, blotches or zig- zags. Inner surfaces glossy white, often with orange or purple tints over a wide area below the umbones (Tebble, 1966). Distribution and habitat From Southern and Western England to the Iberian Peninsula, into the Mediterranean and along the Atlantic coast of to Senegal (Tebble, 1996; Poppe & Goto, 1993). This species tends to bury itself in sand, muddy gravel below the mid-water level to few meters depth and usually occurring in quiet waters (Tebble, 1966; Poppe & Goto, 1993). Reproduction Venerupis decussata is considered a strictly gonochoristic species however, although rarely, some hermaphrodites can be found (Delgado & Pérez-Camacho, 2002). In Galicia, the gametogenic cycle of this species shows two distinctive phases: a resting phase in winter and gametogenesis, including maturity and spawning, in the summer (Ojea et al ., 2004). The gametogenic cycle comprises a short period of inactivity during November–December when reproductive activity is minimal, following by rapid development and proliferation of the gonad, accompanied by rapid increase in tissue weight during the spring. There is an extended reproductive period during the summer when body and shell growth, gametogenesis and spawning may all occur together. This period is brought to an end in the autumn by the cessation of gonadal recovery, marking a return to inactivity (Figueras, 1957; Pérez- Camacho, 1980; Rodríguez et al ., 1993; Rodríguez Moscoso, 2000; Ojea et al ., 2004). A similar reproductive cycle was described by Matias et al . (2012; submitted) and Breber (1980) for a population of V. decussata from Ria de Aveiro and Ria Formosa (Portugal) and from Venice (), respectively. Other authors reported a different reproductive cycle with the occurrence of two major periods of spawning, in spring and in summer or early autumn (Morocco - Shafee & Daoudi, 1991; France - Borsa & Millet, 1992; Laruelle et al ., 1994; Greece – Chryssanthakopoulou & Kaspiris, 2005; Portugal - Vilela, 1950; Pacheco et al ., 1989). Laruelle et al . (1994) reviewed data on reproductive patterns in V. decussata throughout its geographical range and concluded that temperature has a PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 20 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 positive effect on gametogenesis and spawning that may directly affect the metabolic rate of the , or indirectly affect the availability of food, as the maximum rate of increase in weight occurs during the spring, when both the sea temperature and food supply increase rapidly. Age and growth In Rias Baixas, growth rates observed for Venerupis decussata evolve according to the temperature cycle and annual productivity, being highest in spring, decreasing in summer until September and almost stop growing from mid-autumn to mid-winter (Pérez-Camacho, 1980; García Fernández, et al ., 2003). In Ria Formosa (south Portugal; Banha, 1984; Machado, 1984) and Huelva (South Spain; Royo, 1985), this species presents a similar growth pattern, with a period of rapid growth occurring between March and October with, a maximum from March to June, followed by a growing stagnation period from November to February. In UK, Walne (1976) observed that growth occurs between April-May and October, when the seawater temperature remains higher than 10ºC. Several authors observed the formation of annual growth rings during the winter, namely in January and February (Urrutia et al ., 1999; Chryssanthakopoulou & Kaspiris, 2005; Jurić et al ., 2012). Growth of Venerupis decussata is faster during the first two-three years of life, declining when they are about three-four years old and almost stopping growth in subsequent years (Machado, 1984; Royo, 1985; Pérez-Camacho, 1980), reaching maximum size at the age of six-seven years old. This species reaches the commercial size between 2-4 years old (e.g. Banha, 1984; Jurić et al., 2012) depending on the local environmental conditions and food availability. KINGDOM Animalia PHYLUM Mollusca CLASS Bivalvia SUBCLASS Heterodonta ORDER Veneroida FAMILY Veneridae GENUS Venerupis SPECIES Venerupis philippinarum COMMO N NAME Sp. - Almeja japónica En.- Manila clam

Shell description The shell of Venerupis philippinarum is large, solid, equivalve, inequilateral and is almost identical to the shell of V. decussata , being the outline and the sculpture of the shell the characteristics that distinguish both species (Poppe & GoTo, 1993). Indeed, in V. philippinarum the outline is more circular and the shell has much more pronounced decussate sculpture. Shell colour Extremely variable in color and pattern. Exterior generally cream, variously rayed, banded, blotched or zig-zaged with brown. Interior of the shell is polished, white to pinkish-white with an orange or pale yellow tint, sometimes with purple/violet tint over a wide area below the umbones, especially in individuals from the top of the (Qi, 1998). Distribution and Habitat Venerupis philippinarum originates from south-eastern Asia (Poppe & GoTo, 1993) occurring from the Zhuanghe River in Liaoning to the southern part of the Leizhou Peninsula in Guangdong in ; and from the south of the Okhotsk Sea, Sakhalin, , through , the Korean Peninsula,

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 21 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Philippines, , , Sri Lanka and Indonesia (Qi, 1998). Introduced for commercial proposes in several areas which has led to a considerably expanded distribution range. This species presently occurs in , USA and the Pacific seacoast of (USA and Canada). Its invasion history in European waters is very well documented. It was introduced in the Mediterranean (Italy, France, Sardinia, Romania) and Brittany, France, where it lives in the same habitat as V. decussata (Qi, 1998). It was first introduced for culture in the Venice Lagoon, Italy in 1983. The seed came from hatcheries in the UK (Breber, 2002). Cultivation is expanding on the Atlantic coast of Europe mainly in Spain, Portugal and France. Natural populations may even develop in colder parts of its introduced range, in Norway and the UK (Mortensen, 1993; Morgan, 2002). In the Mediterranean and on the Atlantic coast of Europe it may form well-established natural populations, limiting or replacing V. decussata (Flye-Sainte-Marie et al ., 2007). This venerid bivalve lives buried, a few centimeter deep, sand, sand-silt, sand-pebble, muddy gravel and stiff clay of both intertidal and subtidal zones (Nie, 1991; Poppe & GoTo, 1993). It is a euryhaline species that inhabits the mouths of estuaries in which salinities range from 16 to 36, with an optimum between 20 and 26. Reproduction Venerupis philippinarum is a dioecious and gonochoric organism (Chew, 1989; Eversole, 1989; Devauchelle, 1990) and is a broadcast spawner. Nevertheless, some hermaphrodites can be occasionally found (Holland & Chew, 1974; Ponurovsky & Yakovlev, 1992; Drummond et al ., 2006). Rodríguez-Moscoso et al. (1992) studied the reproductive cycle of a V. philippinarum population from Ria de Vigo (Galicia) and found that this species were ripe all year around unless a rest period from October till December. These authors also reported a decrease in the percentage of ripe oocytes, corresponding to the spawning period in females from June to November. Other studies have shown that the reproductive cycle varies significantly with geographic location. In the northwest of Ireland gametogenesis began in February, with most gametes being ripe by May and spawning occurred between May and September (Drummond et al ., 2006). Asynchronous state of gonadal development between individuals and within the gonad of each individual, and areas with different degrees of maturity may coexist in the same individual (Delgado & Pèrez-Camacho, 2007). Variation in the number of annual spawnings is evident within the geographical distribution range of this species. In Spain, Rodriguez Moscoso et al . (1992) reported two spawning periods in the Ria de Vigo and Sarasquete et al . (1990) reported three spawnings in the southwest. In France, Bay of Arcachon Robert et al . (1993) recorded a single autumn spawning period whereas Beninger & Lucas (1984) for the south Finistère coast of Brittany, recorded two spawning periods, one from April to August and the second at the end of the summer. Drummond et al . (2006) in Ireland observed one major spawning event, July to September, amongst a continual period of small-scale spawning. Laruelle et al . (1994) observed three spawning events in the Morbihan Gulf. In Puget Sound, Washington State (Holland & Chew, 1974) and in British Colombia (Bourne, 1982) occurs an extended spawning period from late June and continuing at intermittent periods during the summer and into autumn. In Japan, Ohba (1959) reported that Manila clams spawned twice a year in different parts of Japan. Temperature is influential on the onset of both gametogenesis and spawning in the Manila clam, with the lower temperature limit for gonadal activity reported to be 8 °C, 12 °C for gamete ripening, and 14 °C for spawning (Ohba, 1959; Holland & Chew, 1974; Mann, 1979; Xie & Burnell, 1994; Delgado & Pérez-Camacho, 2007). Sexual maturity is generally attained when clams are about 20 -25 mm in length (Jones et al ., 1993). Larvae settles with approximately 200  length after two-four weeks (Helm et al ., 2004;) and hangs onto substrate by byssal threads. Notwithstanding, metamorphosis may last up to 2 weeks, before losing the velum (Jones et al ., 1993).

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 22 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Age and growth The age and growth of Venerupis philippinarum have been studied in several areas, namely in the Tagus , Portugal (Garaulet et al ., 2012), Poole Harbour, England (Humphreys, J., 2007), Arcachon Bay, France (Dang., et al ., 2010), Sardinia, France, in the Mediterranean (Cannas, 2010), Amursky Bay, Russia, Sea of Japan (Ponurovskii, 2008), Jindu coast, Korea, Hansan island (Cho & Jeong, 2007) and Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii (Yap, 1978). This species shows a similar growth pattern to Venerupis decussata with growth rates decreasing sharply during autumn and winter (Robert et al ., 1993; Nakamura et al ., 2002). In general, growth is extremely fast during the first 2-3 declining henceforth until attaining the maximum age of 7-8 years (Ponurovskii, 2008; Garaulet et al ., 2012). According to Bacher & Goulletquer (1989) periods of high growth in V. philippinarum were associated with high temperatures, high chlorophyll, lipids and proteins concentrations in water column whereas periods of low growth were related to low temperatures, high turbidity and a high detritic food content in the water. Usually, this species reaches the minimum legal size within 1.5-2.5 years (Garaulet et al ., 2012).

KINGDOM Animalia PHYLUM Mollusca CLASS Bivalvia SUBCLASS Heterodonta ORDER Veneroida FAMILY Veneridae GENUS Venerupis SPECIES Venerupis Corrugata COMMON NAME Sp. - Almeja babosa En.- Pullet carpet shell

Shell description Shell solid, equivalve, inequilateral and broadly oval. Umbones distinctly anterior; hinge line sloping anteriorly, straight posteriorly, forming a sharp angle with posterior margin. The exterior is sculptured with numerous concentric ridges and grooves and faint radiating ribs that become a little coarse posteriorly. Growth stages clear. The lunule is elongate and shallow whereas the escutcheon is narrow. Each valve presents three cardinal teeth with of which one on the left and two on the right are bifid. No lateral teeth. Adductor scars and pallial line distinct. Pallial sinus deep, U-shaped, extending beyond midline of shell; posteriorly, the lower limb of the pallial sinus may be confluent with the pallial line for a short distance. Margin is smooth (Tebble, 1966; Macedo et al ., 1999) Shell colour Cream, grey light brown or yellowish white colour, sometimes presenting bands, rays, and zig-zags of brown or purple. Usually darkest close to posterior margin. Inner surfaces glossy white sometimes tinted blue or purple beneath umbones and along posterior margin (Tebble, 1966; Macedo et al ., 1999). Distribution and habitat Distributed from northern Norway and the Baltic, the Iberian Peninsula, Mediterranean, Canaries to South Africa (Tebble, 1966; Poppe & Goto, 1993). Venerupis corrugata burrows in hard sand, muddy gravel or muddy sand at the base of rocks, or in dead shells, from the intertidal zone up to 40m

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 23 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 depth (Tebble, 1966; Poppe & Goto, 1993). Often attached by a . This species burrows into the sediment to a maximum depth of around 5cm (Cerviño-Otero, 2011). Reproduction Venerupis corrugata have separate sexes and is a broadcast spawner, i.e. eggs and sperm are released into the water and fertilization is external. This species has a relatively short larval life and good larval survival rate, with metamorphosis occurring around 30 days after hatching (Fish & Fish, 1996). In Galicia and Aveiro (Northern Portugal) the reproductive cycle of Venerupis corrugata is characterized by an extended spawning and a short, or even lack, resting period (Quayle, 1952; Villalba et al ., 1993; Maia et al ., 2006; Cerviño-Otero, 2011; Joaquim et al ., 2011). Cerviño-Otero (2011) and Joaquim et al . (2011) observed the spawning period extends from late winter to early summer, whereas Maia et al . (2006) reported that pullet carpet shell spawns between March and late November. Cerviño-Otero (2011) for an intertidal population from the O Grove (SW of Galicia) observed ripe and spawning stages throughout the year. In Scotland, Quayle (1952) recorded breeding between May and September. Extended spawning seems to be an advantageous reproductive strategy for the species be¬cause it ensures a continuous supply of settling larvae. In general, the reproductive cycle in this species follows a seasonal cycle that correlated negatively with sea surface temperature (Joaquim et al., 2011). Synchronized gonadal development between males and females is observed (Maia et al ., 2006; Cerviño-Otero, 2011; Joaquim et al ., 2011) which is fundamental to the reproductive success of the species because sperm and oocytes are expelled into the water column simultaneously during the spawning period, which increases the probability of fertilization (O’Connor & Heasman, 1995). Notwithstanding, this synchronism was not reported by Villalba et al . (1993) for a population in Galicia. Maia et al . (2006) reported that in Ria of Aveiro (Northern Portugal) V. corrugata reached the sexual maturity at a total shell length of 22mm. Age and growth The age and growth of Venerupis corrugata have been studied in several areas, namely in Aveiro, Portugal (Maia et al ., 2006), Ria Arousa and Ria Pasage, Spain (Pérez-Camacho, 1980; Mejuto, 1984, respectively) and Leroy island, Norway (Johannssen, 1973). Growth rate in this varies according to environmental conditions being faster during the first two-three years of life, declining afterwards and almost stopping growth when individuals are five years old, reaching maximum size at the age of six-seven years old (Quayle, 1952; Maia et al ., 2006). Both asymptotical maximum length (L∞= 58.96 mm) and growth coefficient estimated (k=0.55) for populations from Ria Arousa were higher than the ones estimated for other populations which may be related to differences in the environmental condition between sites and/or food availability (Maia et al ., 2006). Genetics Joaquim et al . (2010) analyzed the genetic diversity of two natural Venerupis corrugata populations from two coastal lagoons, the Ria Formosa (Southern Portugal) and Ria of Aveiro (North Portugal) by RAPD. The results showed similar and substantive percentage of polymorphic loci, effective number of alleles, Nei’s gene diversity, and Shannon’s diversity index within both populations. Moreover the analyses of population genetic structure also revealed a small genetic differentiation between the two populations. Pereira et al . (2010) characterize the polymorphic microsatellite loci in Venerupis corrugata fundamental for future population genetic studies in this species. These authors reported 12 polymorphic microsatellite loci for a population of the carpet shell from O Barqueiro (NW Spain). The number of alleles ranged from three to 28 and the observed and expected heterozygosity ranged from 0.074 to 0.727 and from 0.073 to 0.958, respectively. No linkage disequilibrium between loci was detected and nine of them conformed to Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (Pereira et al ., 2010).

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 24 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

3.3.2 Assessment of the target species populations within each TURF The Technical Assistance of each Cofradia , Association and Cooperative performs two stock assessments each year, one in February and other in October, in order to determine the abundance, population structure and distribution as well as to estimate mortality of the target species within their TURF. For this purpose, each TURF is divided into sub-areas. In the intertidal zone sampling is performed using quadrats. Forty quadrats (0.25 m 2) are randomly sampled in each area. Sampling consists of hand-raking all the individuals from each quadrat. Quadrats are excavated to a depth of 0.2 m. In the subtidal sub-areas, 20 samples are collected using a specific bullrake. This bullrake were altered in order to retain most of the juveniles that enter the gear. The bullrake is towed from fishing vessels covering an area of 1.2 m 2. Each management plan is formulated independently and takes into consideration the results of those surveys. Therefore, input and output controls set for the next year are changed if necessary and the type of enhancement activities are defined. 3.3.3 Stock status and Reference Points As mentioned before, due to the management regime adopted in Galicia (TURF), the status of bivalve stocks are not assessed in an integral way, that is, stock assessment is not performed for the Ría Arousa, and therefore no reference points are set. Notwithstanding, this is not very problematic since most of the exploited bivalve, such as Cerastoderma edule, Venerupis corrugata, V. decussata and V. philippinarum populations, show large spatial and temporal fluctuations due to the fishing effort coupled with high variability in success of spat fall and recruitment (e.g. Kraan et al ., 2008; Molares et al ., 2008; Beukema et al ., 2010) as well as winter mortality (Molares et al ., 2008). Indeed, dynamics of these species stocks are peculiar due to their short lifespan and high variability in recruitment. Therefore, for most species, reference indicators such as BMSY or FMSY are not used to evaluate the status of the stocks. 3.3.4. History of fishing and management In accordance with Law 11/2008 of December 3 of Galicia Fishing (said Law is amended in Table 3.3.1) shellfish harvesting zones are classified as: • Free shellfish-harvesting zones – Natural bank where collection is not subject to an administrative authorization or concession. • Shellfish-harvesting authorization zones – Natural banks or a portion thereof of which normal private usage rights are granted on a temporary basis for its use under an exclusive regime. • Shellfish-harvesting concession zones – Natural banks or a portion thereof where exceptional private usage rights are granted, involving a temporary right to occupation, use, or enjoyment. The bivalve harvesting in Ría Arousa is managed under a regime of authorizations. The commercial exploitation of each TURF is of the responsibility of one or more fishermen association “Cofradía ”, Cooperative or Producers Organization. Under this regime, bivalves stocks are management as “population units”, corresponding each unit to the target species individuals that occur in each TURF. Therefore, the assessment of the target species stocks is not carried out for the entire Ria Arousa. Instead, each fishermen association, Cooperative and Producers Organization makes its own evaluation of the status of the commercial stocks within their TURF. Each fishermen association, Cooperative, Producer Organization or Fishing Administration (for the areas of “free harvesting”) produces annually a Management Plan (for Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 25 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Ria de Arousa see Martinez, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) where a range of management measures and objectives for the fishery are set out. All MPs can be downloaded from the following site: www.pescadegalicia.com. Each management plan comprises a combination of input and output controls, namely: i) limited entry, given through fishing licenses; ii) minimum landing sizes; iii) daily quota per harvester and per target species; iv) total number of fishing days per month and per type of fishing; v) limited fishing hours per day; vi) implementation of closed areas whenever necessary; vii) closed seasons; and viii) enhancement production strategies. These management restrictions help to limit the fishing effort, thereby sustaining the species and the supporting environment. Moreover, these controls are used to maintain target species populations at adequate levels. The management strategy of each management plan is reviewed on an annual basis and takes into consideration the abundance of target species and the size structure of the target species’ populations.

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

3.4.1. Ecosystem general information In general the ecosystem is fairly well studied. Indeed, there is quite good information on both the abiotic and biotic part of the Ría de Arousa ecosystem. The information that is available to describe the ecosystem is as follows:

Abiotic part: • Physical-chemical characterization of seawater of Ria Arousa (Fernández de Castillejo & Blanton, 1982; Iglesias & Nunes, 1982; Rosón et al ., 1995; Alvarez-Salgado et al ., 1996; Parada et al ., 2007, 2011) • Hydrodynamics of the Ria de Arousa (including upwelling events) (e.g. Gómez Gallego, 1971, 1975; Otto, 1975; Fraga, 1981; Fernández de Castillejo & Blanton, 1982; Fernández de Castillejo & Lavin, 1982; Tenore et al ., 1982, 1984; Blanton et al ., 1984; Rosón et al ., 1991, 1995; Figueiras et al ., 2002; De Castro et al ., 2008; González, et al ., 2009). • Cartography of Ria de Arousa (González, et al ., 2009) • Bathimetry of Ria de Arousa (Fismare, 2008) • Sediment characterization of Ria de Arousa (Rey Salgado, 1993; Vilas et al ., 2005) • Mapping of the clam beds (Fismare, 2008) • Sedimentary characterization of the clams beds (Fismare, 2008)

Biotic part: • Primary production and phytoplankton in Ria Arousa (Nunes et al ., 1984 ; Varela, 1992; Varela et al ., 1984, 2005) • Distribution of sensitive and protected habitats in Galicia (Peña & Bárbara, 2007; Aguilar et al ., 2009) • Macroalgae of Rias Bajas (Galicia) (Niell, 1978). • Macrobenthic populations of Ria Arousa (Mora, 1980) • ETP species are listed for Galicia (http://www.faunagallega.es.tl/# and http://www.medioruralemar.xunta.es/ .) • Main predator species of commercial clams (de Coo, 2012) • Marine (Arcos et al ., 2009)

3.4.2. Habitat To understand the impact that may be produced by fishing on the habitat, it is fundamental to know the location of fishing grounds in order to characterize the habitats where the fishery takes place. PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 26 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Fismare (2008) mapped and characterized the clam beds belonging to the Cooperative . In Figure 10 is presented the maps of sediment characteristics of the superficial (left) and deeper strata (right). Sediment bottom vary from muddy to gravel and no protected habitats are presented in the fishing area.

Figure 10 Map of the sediment types found in the Cooperative area. Surface stratum (left); deeper stratum (right) The leyend of Figure 10 is as follows: G (Gravel). Percentage of gravel greater than 80%; Gf (Gravel with silt). 30-80% gravel and silt/sand ratio greater than 50%; Gaf (Gravel with sand and silt): 30-80% gravel and silt/sand ratio between 10-50%; Ga (Gravel with sand). 30-80% gravel and silt/sand ratio less than 10%; Fg (Silt with gravel). 5-30% gravel and silt/sand ratio greater than 50%; Agf Sand with gravel and silt). 5-30% gravel and silt/sand ratio between 10-50%; Ag (Sand with gravel). 5-30% of gravel and silt/sand ratio less than 10%; F(g) (Silt with small amount of gravel). 1-5% gravel and silt/sand ratio greater than 90%; Fa(g) (Silt with sand and very little gravel). 1-5% gravel and silt/sand ratio between 50-90%; Af(g) (Sand with silt and very little gravel). 1-5% gravel and silt/sand ratio between 10-50%; A(g) (Sand with very little gravel). 1-5% gravel and silt/sand ratio less than 10%; F (Silt). Less than 1% gravel and silt/sand ratio greater than 90%; Fa (Silt with sand). Less than 1% gravel and silt/sand ratio between 50-90%; Af (Sand with silt). Less than 1% of gravel and silt/sand ratio between 10-50%; A (Sand). Less than 1% of gravel and silt/sand ratio less than 10%.

The clam fisheries that are carried out within the area of the Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa occurs from the intertidal zone up to 8m depth. In intertidal area clams harvesters pick up clams by hand or rake and scrape the clams from the sediment whereas in subtidal areas clams are harvested using bullrakes. Reviews of the impact of fishing on soft sediments were done by Jennings & Kaiser (1998), Kaiser et al . (2001) and Gaspar et al . (2007, 2011). The impacts reported by these authors include sediment re-suspension, changes in sediment granulometry due to the transport by currents of the fine fraction of the sediment, sediment fluidization, release of nutrients and/or contaminants to the water column, formation of trenches and changes in seabed topography. The severity of the impact on the sediment depends on i) the type of technique/ fishing gear used; ii) fishing effort; iii) amount of area disturbed; iv) local hydrodynamics; and iv) fishery management.

3.4.3. Retained and bycatch species Concerning the fishery that is undertaken within the Sociedad Cooperativa Ria de Arousa authorization area, harvesters are not allowed to retained other species than the ones that makes part of the management plan. Therefore, there are no retained species in this fishery.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 27 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

In intertidal areas harvesters pick up bivalves by hand and sometimes rudimentary tools are used to dig clams out of the sediment. In this case no bycatch exists since these harvesting tools do not have any retention mechanism. In subtidal areas, bullrakes are used to harvest the target species and therefore some bycatch may occur. According to stakeholders the proportion of bycatch species in the catch is extremely low not exceeding 5%. The main bycatch species are Polybius spp. and , the netted dog Nassarius reticulatus and rarely the Asterias rubens and Marthasterias glacialis . Stakeholders mentioned that the proportion of damaged bycatch species in the catch is almost nil and since bycatch individuals are immediately discarded in situ the survival rate is expected to be extremely high. High survival rates of nearly 100% were reported for discarded starfishes (Kaiser & Spencer, 1995) and (Kaiser & Spencer, 1995; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007).

3.4.4. Endangered, Threatened and Protected Species (ETP) The list of ETP species for Galicia can be found in the following websites: http://www.faunagallega.es.tl/# and http://www.medioruralemar.xunta.es/. For the “authorization area” of Sociedad Cooperativa de Ria de Arousa no ETP were identified by stakeholders (including NGO’s). Of the birds species that may occur in the UC (Ardea cinerea , Egretta garzetta , Larus cachinas , Sterna albifrons , Arenaria interpres and Numenius phaeopus ) none of them are listed as ETP species. Up to date, no marine mammals or reptiles were reported for the fishing area of the UC and therefore no interaction between this species and fishing vessels during transit between the port and fishing grounds or during harvesting operations are expected.

Of the species that predate on the target species none of them are considered ETP species (de Coo et al ., 2012).

3.4.5. Clam predators Clams have numerous predators that include a range of organisms. Predation is one of the most important biotic factors affecting clam populations and therefore production along the Rias of Galicia (de Coo et al. , 2012). De Coo et al. (2012) developed a comprehensive study between 2008 and 2012 aiming at identifying the most important clam predator species in Ria Arousa and Pontevedra (Galicia, Spain) and to estimate the predation rate of clams by the most important predators. To achieve the latter objective, several laboratory experiments were performed. The most relevant results of this study are presented below: and Crustacean-like Predators The most abundant crustacean species in Ria Arousa and Pontevedra were the swimming , Liocarcinus spp., and the crab Atelecyclus rotundatus and Diogenes pugilator . In same areas of Ria arousa the green crab Carcinus maenas may also be abundant. These species can effectively-prey on seed, juveniles or adults (animals of 5 to 35 mm). Predation rates observed were of 32.3, 12.8, 8.7 and 2.3 clams/day for C. maenas , A. rotundatus , L. corrugatus and D. pugilator , respectively. C. maenas and A. rotundatus preyed preferentially seed and juveniles whereas L. corrugatus preyed on larger clams. Crustacean predators, typically open shellfish with their claws by crushing the entire clam, chipping a valve edge, or forcing the valves apart. Gastropods Several types of gastropods that prey on all sizes of commercially important bivalves were identified, namely: Nucela lapillus, Ocenebra erinaceus, Natica alderi, Murex brandaris , Murex trunculus , Nassarius (Hinia) reticulatus, Cyclope neritea . Different strategies are adopted by gastropods to prey clams. are borers leaving a tiny, bevelled hole through one valve usually near the umbo. They can drill and consume hard clams up to 63 mm in length at a rate of nearly one per day. Whelk uses PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 28 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 its foot to grasp and position the clam. The sharp edge of the whelk’s shell is inserted between the two valves of the clam. Using its foot and body, the whelk gently rocks the clam back and forth. In the process, its shell edge slowly chips the outer margin of the clam’s shell. Gradually the clam is forced open as the whelk continues to apply-pressure. Eventually, the sharp edge of the whelk cuts into the soft tissue of the clam. The whelk then inserts its proboscis and consumes the tissue inside. Of the gastropods present in Ria Arousa, one of the most abundant species is Nassarius (Hinia) reticulatus and therefore laboratory experiments were mainly directed to this species. The results showed that this species prefer to prey in recent dead animals rather than in healthy animals. The experiments conducted with whelks showed that 1-3 medium clams can be preyed per day. Commercial losses caused by carnivorous gastropod are much less than those inflicted by crabs. Starfish Asterias rubens and Marthasterias glacialis are commun in the Rias and also prey on clams by pulling the two valves of a bivalve apart with its five arms and inserts its stomach into the exposed shell cavity. As enzymes are released, the clam meat is digested and absorbed by the starfish. A starfish can consume up to three adult bivalves per day and at least 15 oyster spat per day. Laboratory experiments showed that these species can prey around 1 clam per day.

Rays In Ria Arousa occurs the ray Myliobatis aquila which is also an important predator in clam beds. These animals stir up the bottom sediments with their wings, thereby exposing bivalves which they then crush with their teeth and consume. This species preys on seed and juveniles of all clams species with commercial interest but only prey adults of cocles ( Cerastoderma edule ). The laboratory experiments showed that the predation rate of cockle was estimated in 12.5 ind/day whereas on seed and juveniles the predation rate was much higher.

Fishes Several Dicentrachus labrax , Spaurus aurata , Diplodus spp., soles and Ballistes carolinensis were identified as predators of bivalves in Ria Arousa. However no laboratory experiments on the predation rate of clams were conducted.

Birds According to the stakeholders interviewed, in Ria de Arousa several species occur that prey in bivalves. The most abundant are the wading birds Ardea cinerea , Egretta garzetta , Sterna albifrons , Arenaria interpres and Numerius spp. and the gull Larus cachinnans . Some bird species use their webbed feet to stir up small clams to consume, others will take larger clams off the bottom in shallow water, crack the clams open by dropping them on rocks or just will pick them up off the bottom if they are uncovered. Coo et al (2012) reported that wading birds in O’Groove (Ria Arousa) can consume around 40 millions of cockles and 3 millions of clams.

3.4.6. Ecosystem impacts

Ecosystem impacts of fishing on macrobenthic communities and sediment The ecological effects of intertidal bivalve species harvesting using mechanical methods are well documented (e.g. Moore, 1991; Rostron, 1993; Rostron, 1995; see review by Rees, 1996; Hall & Harding, 1997; Ferns et al ., 2000; Piersma et al ., 2001), whereas studies on the impacts of non- mechanical methods (such as the harvesting techniques used in Ria Arousa) on the ecosystem (e.g. Spencer, 1996; Kaiser et al ., 2001; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007) are scarce.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 29 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Several studies have shown that sandy communities have a high capacity to recover from dredge- fishery disturbance (e.g. Kaiser et al ., 1998a; Spencer et al ., 1998). In a comparative study between the effects of the hydraulic dredge and tractor dredger, Hall & Harding (1997) found that the former gear had a higher impact on the benthic fauna. However, this impact was smothered within 56 days. They pointed out a seasonal community response as the main reason for this recovery. Ferns et al . (2000) studied the impact of a tractor-towed cockle harvester on two intertidal sandy habitats (muddy sand and clean sand) and found that tractor dredging for cockles can cause depletion of non-target populations for several months. They also observed that invertebrate populations in clean sand recovered more quickly that those in muddy sand. This difference in the community recovery was related to its structure, which was more complex in the latter habitat. Spencer (1996) reported site recovery times of 3-4 months and 8 months for hand-raking and suction dredging. A higher reduction in species diversity and abundance was observed when the latter harvest method was used. In a study conducted in the Dee Estuary, Kaiser et al . (2001) demonstrated that recolonisation of sediments disturbed by hand-raking depends on the size of the path. These authors observed that communities in small raked plots recovered 56 days after the disturbance whereas communities in large plots recovered within a year. Leitão & Gaspar (2007) studied de immediate effects of clam harvesting with hand-dredge and harvesting-knife on benthic communities and found that the impact induced was minimal regardless of the gear. These works evidence that the adverse effects of bivalve harvesting are site specific, depending on several factors such as community structure, size of the area disturbed and harvesting method.

It is also important to mention that although sediment is left in situ its cohesive nature can be disrupted because it is churned up and therefore fine particles can be washed away during flooding (Kaiser et al ., 2001; Hiddink, 2003).

Hall et al . (1993) stressed that if the scale of disturbance induced by the gear is small enough to allow rapid re-colonisation, large-scale effects never become apparent. According to Hall et al . (1990), the effects of fishing on local populations are only likely to persist if macrobenthic populations themselves, or sediments in which they inhabit, are immobile or the affected area is large in relation to the remaining habitat, which prevents the dilution effect occurring. The effects of gear impact on small areas with dynamic habitats, such as sandy sediments, are quickly diluted through the migration of benthos from surrounding areas or through sediment redistribution (Hall et al ., 1990; Eleftheriou & Robertson, 1992).

Clam harvesting may also cause the increase of nutrient changes in surface sediments (Fanning et al ., 1982; Mayer et al ., 1991; Riemann & Hoffmann, 1991; Newell et al ., 1998; Falcão et al ., 2003). Fanning et al . (1982) found that harvesting rapidly favoured the release of nutrients to the water column, changing the chemical and biological stability of sediment. Falcão et al . (2003) reported that high amounts of nutrients trapped in the pore-waters of surface sediments were rapidly released to the water column. These authors also found that in sediments where the organic matter content was high dredging changed the internal loading of nitrogen and phosphorus unbalancing the N:P. However, in shallow areas with higher exposure to winds, waves and tidal currents tend rapidly to restore the sediment characteristics as demonstrated by Krost et al . (1990).

Ecosystem impacts of enhancement activities • Effects of terrain preparation Whenever the terrain becomes compact, harvesters turn over the sediment with rakes or grubber hoes in order to favour the settlement of larvae. The impacts that this procedure may cause are similar to harvesting. PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 30 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

• Effects of seeding - Genetic impacts Hatchery practices may have deleterious effects on the genetic makeup of the released stock, and consequently a deleterious effect on the wild population (Ward, 2006). Maintenance of broodstock in hatcheries leading to low effective population sizes will result in the loss of genetic variation in hatchery progeny compared with the natural population from which the broodstock were derived (Bartley et al ., 1995; Ryman & Laikre, 1991). Gene flow, the interbreeding among wild and hatchery- outplanted clams may also occur, making organisms more homozygous (Machordom et al ., 1999; Arnaud-Haond et al ., 2004; Ward, 2006) leading to negative effects by exposing deleterious recessive genes to selection or by eliminating increased fitness arising from over-dominance (Ward, 2006). Supportive breeding can reduce the effective population size (Ne) of the supplemented population especially if the number of broodstock used for artificial propagation is small and the stocked juveniles make-up a large proportion of all offspring (Ryman & Laikre, 1991; Waples & Do, 1994).

According to Reisenbichler & Rubin (1999) the release of hatchery-reared juveniles can lower the fitness (outbreeding depression) of the supplemented population namely if the released stock is from a genetically distinct population and if it hybridizes with the natural population. This reflects the breakdown of co-adapted gene complexes and the disruption of beneficial interactions between genes and the local environment (Shikano & Taniguchi, 2003; Edmands & Deimler, 2004).

• Effects of seeding and on-growing areas – birds populations Harvesting sites occupy areas of intertidal zones that may conflict with bird feeding (Kaiser et al ., 1998b). However, seeding may benefit populations of generalist consumers since it increases the density of clams (preys) in the harvested area. Most mortality in wintering wader populations is caused by competition for limited resources leading to starvation or to risk-prone behaviour motivated by hunger (Goss-Custard 1985; Whitfield 2003) and therefore the increase of clam density within the “authorization areas” may reduce this mortality. Caldow et al . (2007) demonstrated that the presence of manila clam, even at low density, has reduced the predicted over-winter mortality of . These authors referred that further increases in clam population density are predicted to have even more pronounced benefit effects on the density dependence of over-winter mortality. Notwithstanding, although seeding may increase seabed productivity and provide more food for birds, the husbandry activity may disturb them and reduce their feeding time (Kaiser et al ., 1998c).

• Effects of protecting nets and sediment adding In years when occur recruitment failure or high spat mortalities of Venerupis corrugata and Venerupis philippinarum , hatchery-reared seed produced in the facilities of the Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa are transplanted in specific ongrowing areas. In this stage, anti-predator nets are utilized to protect seed and juveniles from predation, and thereby, minimize mortality, optimizing growth to maximize yield per unit of time, space, and capital invested (Kraeuter & Castagna, 1985; Cigarria & Fernandez, 2000; Beal & Krauss, 2002; Dumbauld et al ., 2009). The use of nets may have a continuous impact on the local hydrographic regime by reducing tidal flow (influencing recruitment patterns of shellfish larvae to those areas) (Munroe & Mckinley, 2007) and increasing sedimentation (Spencer et al ., 1997) or, rarely, accelerating flow and causing erosion (Dumbauld et al ., 2009). Kaiser et al . (1996), Spencer (1996), Spencer et al . (1996, 1997), Goulletquer et al . (1998) have shown an increase of the sedimentation rate under the nets compared to a previous unaltered situation, with or without modifications of the associated infaunal community. Moreover, anti-predator nets covering the sea-bottom are known to increase the organic contents

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 31 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 of the sediment (Bendell-Young, 2006; Spencer et al ., 1997) and the sediment oxygen uptake that may lead to sediment anoxia and accumulation of free sulphide (see citations in Callier et al ., 2009) which can affect the abundance, biomass, and diversity of benthic communities (Hartstein & Rowden, 2004; Callier et al ., 2007; Toupoint et al ., 2008) and also pelagic environment due to concomitant increase in the nutrient turnover at the sediment-water interface (see Callier et al ., 2009). But the organic enrichment of the sediment surface decreases in relatively high energy sites (De Grave et al ., 1998; Hartstein & Rowden, 2004). Bendell-Young (2006) has still demonstrated a simplification of the intertidal benthic community within netted parcels after 3 years. When modifications on benthic communities occur is observed a change in species composition towards domination by deposit feeding worms (Kaiser et al ., 1996; Spencer et al ., 1997). Toupoint et al . (2008) reported that sediment stability was increased under the nets and the induced relief (bump/furrow) persisted along the production cycle only in relatively low energy concessions. The probabilities and the degree of detrimental environmental impact roughly depend on the cultivation location and practices (Toupoint et al ., 2008).

In subtidal areas, from time to time, in order to improve natural settlement, sediment is added (gravel-sand). In addition to habitat loss and functioning, some other potential physical and biological disturbances on the benthic community take place (Spencer et al ., 1997). The substrate modification induces changes to benthic community structure (Kraeuter & Castagna, 1985; Spencer et al ., 1997; Beal & Krauss, 2002; Dumbauld et al ., 2009). Chronic low intensity, or infrequent intermediate intensity, intertidal substrate changes tend to be within the range of behavioral or ecological adaptability of intertidal species (Simenstad & Fresh, 1995).

• Effects of predators’ removal Crabs, gastropods, polychaetes, nemerteans, anemones, cnidarians, tunicates, sea stars, fishes and seabirds are major predators on larvae, juvenile and adult bivalve (Landry et al . 2006 and references therein). Therefore, in order to avoid mass mortalities of seed and juveniles, harvesters usually control/remove predators by reducing competitor and predator densities (e.g. Leavitt & Burt, 2000; Jamieson et al . 2001; Landry et al ., 2006). In the TURF of the Cooperative traps are used to limit crabs, gastropods and seastars. Control/removal of predators from culture areas may alter intertidal community structure through changes in predator-prey relationships, affecting a number of trophic pathways which could promote unpredictable cascading effects on the ecosystem (Bendell-Young & Ydenberg, 2001) including increasing the abundance of infauna locally (Jamieson et al . 2001;). Summerson & Petterson (1984) showed that the removal of large mobile ephibenthic predators led to a significant increase of macrobenthic infauna in the exploited areas. Bendell-Young & Ydenberg (2001) reported that one of the consequences of the removal/exclusion of crabs, snails, etc was the shift of the intertidal community from a dominated epibenthos species to a community comprising primarily clams. Jamieson et al . (2001) suggest that the absence of large predators from harvesting sites may account for unpredictable differences between culture and control sites rather than other explanatory factors.

• Removal of dead seaweed Sometimes dystrophic events occur, especially in the summer, when huge mats of dead seaweed cover large portions of the fishing grounds. These events have a negative impact on clam production (Viaroli et al ., 2006) since its decomposition produces a considerable amount of organic matter, increasing the microbial loop activity with the subsequent oxygen depletion, leading to mass mortality of clams and non-target benthic fauna (Viaroli et al ., 1996; Rossi, 2000). Therefore, to avoid this, harvesters periodically clean the fishing grounds from this dead seaweed.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 32 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Ecosystem impacts of exotic species Biological invasions in marine habitats represent a recognized worldwide threat to the integrity of native communities (Streftaris & Zenetos, 2006), leading to changes in the economic value, biological diversity and ecological function of the invaded ecosystems (Mooney & Cleland 2001; Leppakoski et al . 2002; Hulme, 2003). The extent of the impact has been so severe that invasive species are regarded as the second biggest cause of biodiversity loss after habitat destruction (Breithaupt, 2003).

In general alien species pose a threat by impacting on:

1. Native communities Changes in community structure due to displacement of native species, shifts in community dominant species, loss of type-specific communities and keystone species. The magnitude of the impact may vary from no changes to extinction of native keystone species in the worst case

2. Habitats Alteration, fragmentation and/or loss of benthic native habitats

3. Ecosystem functioning Either directly (affecting hydrology, nutrient cycling, and other processes), or indirectly by changing the whole ecosystem structure and functioning (introduced species often consume or prey on native ones, overgrow them, compete with them, attack them, or hybridise with them).

• Interactions with natural populations a) Competition Venerupis philippinarum was introduced in Europe at the beginning of the 1970s for culture purposes, initially to France (1972) and later to England, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy (Breber, 1985; Flassch & Leborgne, 1992; Gosling, 2003; Jensen et al . 2004, 2005). This species naturalized in all these countries, becoming the main contributor to local clam fisheries.

In Venice lagoon this species was introduced in 1983 (Breber, 1985, 2002; Cesari & Pellizzato, 1985). They extended their range southwards at 30 km per annum and now thrive in all the lagoons along the northern Adriatic coast (Breber 2002). The impressive adaptive capacity of this species have resulted in a wide and rapid expansion into other environments, firstly in the Po River Delta and then along the Adriatic coast (Paesanti, 1990; Rinaldi, 1991) and in different coastal Italian areas (Cottiglia & Masala Tagliasacchi, 1988; Zentilin, 1990; Pranovi et al ., 2006; Mura et al ., 2012).

According to Ricciardi (2004) Invasive species are believed to accelerate the decline of native populations already under environmental stress, leading to population losses and extinctions on a local scale. Several studies have shown that the manila clam populations established occupying the same ecological niches of natural species. Auby, (1993), reported that in the Arcachon Basin, a manila clam has colonized the site and supplanted the indigenous European grooved carpet shell, Venerupis decussata . Caill-Milly et al . (2003) found that V. philippinarum represented 98% of the total abundances of the benthic macrofauna in this Basin. Jensen et al . (2004), reported that this species progressively occupied the same areas of Venerupis decussata which led to the extinction of local populations. In Venice lagoon Pranovi et al . (2006) stated that Venerupis decussata was probably the species which has PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 33 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

most suffered from the competition of V. philippinarum , due to the great overlap of their ecological niches (Sorokin & Giovanardi 1995). Pranovi et al . (2006) found that V. philippinarum was the overdominant bivalve species, both in terms of abundance (72%) and biomass (78%) whereas all the remaining filter– feeder bivalve species showed a declining trend and/or a shift in the distribution pattern. Mura et al . (2012) found that V. philippinarum is rapidly colonizing the Gulf of Olbia and the neighboring areas, displacing natural bivalve populations, which is likely favored by its high potential for dispersal. In Poole Harbour, the appearance of the Manila clam in the late 1980s coincided with a decline in the abundance of Scrobicularia plana and Macoma balthica (Caldow et al . 2005), which may have facilitated the naturalisation of Manila clams (Humphreys et al ., 2007). Similarly in the Tajo River (Portugal) the manila clam developed high density populations outcompeting the indigenous species, V. decussata (Garaulet et al ., 2012).

The above studies indicate that the manila clam has a great capacity to adapt to the new environment becoming invasive, affecting some native European Mediterranean, namely V. decussata . Morevover, in places where fishery has been discontinued, V. philippinarum ended up comprising 98% of the macrofauna abundance (Toupoint et al ., 2008).

b) Reproductive cycle and growth comparison between Venerupis philippinarum and Venerupis decussata The comparative study on of gonadal development of Venerupis philippinarum and Venerupis decussata carried out by Delgado & Pérez-Camacho (2007) showed that the manila clam is perfectly adapted to the thermal conditions of the Galician Rias. These authors found differences in the reproductive behaviour of both species, namely: i) V. philippinarum accumulates oocytes prior to their partial or total emission, while in the case of V. decussata gametes are liberated continuously; ii) In the early phases of its development, the gonad of V. philippinarum is highly heterogeneous in nature while in V. decussata gonadal development is much more uniform. iii) Spawning period in the manila clam seems to be longer than in V. decussata (see also Beninger & Lucas, 1984; Rodrigues-Carballo et al ., 1992; Laruelle et al ,.1994); iii) Reabsorption is common in V. philippinarum but very rare in V. decussata .

All these characteristics may represent an advantage for the adaptation of the foreign species ( V. philippinarum ) over the native species ( V. decussata ) to the temperature conditions of the Galician Rias as a result of its higher gonadal development rate (Delgado & Pérez-Camacho, 2007).

Venerupis philippinarum is more resistant and grew faster than the endemic carpet-shell clam, V. decussata (Chiesa et al ., 2011). Indeed, this species was introduced in Europe for because its growth rate was better than Venerupis decussata (Spencer et al ., 1991). García Fernández et al . (2003) in a growth experiment found that the growth rate in manila clam is around 20% higher than in the carpet shell even during the fall and winter.

c) Hybridization between V. philippinarum and Venerupis decussata . Nonindigenous species can bring about a form of extinction of native fauna by hybridization and introgression through purposeful introduction by humans (Rhymer & Simberloff, 1996; Allendorf et al ., 2001). The harmful effects of hybridization, with or without introgression, have led to the extinction of many populations and species in many plant and animal taxa (Rhymer & Simberloff, 1996). Hybridization is especially problematic for rare species and can

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 34 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

pose a threat mainly to small populations who suffer inbreeding depression and on the possible difficulty of evolution in small populations that have lost alleles to genetic drift (Shrader-Frechette & McCoy, 1993; Rhymer & Simberloff, 1996).

Hybridization between closely related bivalve taxa is relatively well documented in the literature (e.g. the Mytilus spp., Bierne et al ., 2003; Mercenaria , Bert & Arnold, 1995; , Masaoka & Kobayashi, 2005). Huvet et al . (2004) also reported that artificial zones were generated by the introduction of foreign of the genus in the range of distribution of native ones. This was also observed for the genus Venerupis in NW Galicia (Hurtado et al ., 2011). Although these authors have found an absence of pairing problems between V. philippinarum and V. decussata chromosomes in the meiotic prophase I of the hybrids, the presence of the specific V. decussata 16S mitochondrial rDNA sequences in hybrid individuals seems to indicate that those specimens are descendants from crosses between female V. decussata and male V. philippinarum . Hurtado et al . (2011) also detected the presence of mature gametes on the hybrid specimens indicating that these individuals are potentially able to cross with other hybrids and/or the parental species. If hybrids are fertile within few generations we might observed hybrid swarms in which essentially all individuals are of hybrid origin (Allendorf et al ., 2001). If hybrid matings are sterile hybridization is not a threat through genetic mixing, but wasted reproductive effort could pose a demographic risk and the autochthons species may be replaced by the exotic one as it was observed for bull trout Salvelinus confluentus (Leary et al ., 1993) and for the European mink Mustela lutreola (Rozhnov, 1993).

• Effects on the ecosystem The Manila clam is a marine suspension feeding bivalve and an important ecosystem engineer known to significantly increase sediment erosion and re-suspension rates (Sgro et al . 2005). It is recognised that infaunal bivalves can destabilise or bioturbate the sediment as a result of their burrowing activity and frequent valve movements (Rhoads & Boyer, 1982; Widdows et al ., 1998). Sgro et al . (2005) demonstrated that the burrowing activity of V. philippinarum reduces sediment stability, particularly at relatively low current velocities and at densities below those found in the clam cultivation areas within the Sacca di Goro lagoon. However, the magnitude of ecosystem engineering invasion on ecosystem functioning depends on the characteristics of the system where invasion takes place (Queiró et al ., 2011). Moreover, the impact depend on differences between the ‘‘strength’’ of the engineering carried out by the introduced species, and that of those that compose the native community (Bouma et al ., 2009). In the Venice Lagoon (Sorokin et al ., 1999) and in the Sacca of Goro (Bartoli et al ., 2001), it was described that dense, powerful biofiltering clam beds produced a flux of suspended organic matter directly channelled into the sediment, deeply affecting the biogeochemistry of the shallow habitats. A high abundance of bivalves can over-enrich sediments with biodeposit, thereby generating high microbial respiration leading to sediment anoxia that inhibits nitrification and kills benthic fauna (Pranovi et al ., 2006).

High densities of Manila clams may have a pronounced effect on: biogeochemical cycles, the abundance of microplankton, zooplankton and macrolagal growth as it was reported by Sorokin et al . (1999) and Bartoli et al . (2001). Pranovi et al . (2006) suggested that in the Venice lagoon the macrobenthic filtration capacity, from 1990 to 1999, is at least doubled due to Manila clam since this species has a huge density and biomass achieved and a relatively high clearance rate. This produced a strong benthic–pelagic coupling, which can directly affect the ecosystem functioning (Ackerman et al ., 2001), with V. philippinarum PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 35 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

which exerts a strong top–down control (Libralato et al ., 2004). In addition, the filtering activity of V. philippinarum can inhibit the recruitment of other species population by ingesting pelagic larvae (Davenport et al ., 2000; Lehane & Davenport, 2002).

This species may also compete for resources with other species, and may provide a new food resource for generalist predators (Toba et al . 1992) which may leads to changes in benthic communities. By comparing historical data (1968, 1985, 1990) with 1999 data, Pranovi et al . (2006) observed that the introduction of V. philippinarum in the Venice lagoon led to a sharp reduction, both in terms of distribution area and density, of all other bivalves. These studies clearly show that V. philippinarum induces significant changes on the ecosystem.

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

3.5.1. Area of operation of the fishery and under which jurisdiction it falls Management of the fisheries falls under the jurisdiction of the Galicia Autonomous Government (Spain-EU). Galicia is an autonomous community belonging to the Kingdom of Spain, a parliamentary monarchy that has been an EU member since January 1986. Therefore the national and autonomous fishing policies must be governed by the broader EU legal framework for political management. The Government of Spain transfers legal jurisdictions to Galicia for fishing and shellfish harvesting in internal waters via article 148.1.11 of the Spanish Constitution and is captured the Galicia statutes under article 28.5. Royal Decree 3318/82 on the transfer of functions and services of state administration to Galicia sets forth these competencies with regard to fishing and shellfish harvesting.

The Galicia Autonomous Government via the CMRM, its Secretariat, and its various general directorates and services establishes and implements the Galicia Fishing Law of 11/2008, December 3rd , amended by Law 6/2009 of December 11 th and, by way of its management and control instruments, provides monitoring of the fisheries in order to guarantee sustainability.

The Fishing Law of the Galicia Autonomous Government is structured in fourteen titles that incorporate all the functions, instruments, and mechanisms that interact to fulfil the management system and which affects professional fishing as well as other activities and users that can have a significant impact on fishery resources: Title I, General Provisions; Title II, Conservation and Management of Fishery/Shellfish- gathering Resources; Title III, Maritime Fishing; Title IV, Shellfish- gathering; Title V, Marine Aquaculture; VI, Galician flota pesquera ; VII, Fishing Sector Organisations; VIII, Marketing; IX, Sustainable Development in Fishing and Shellfish Harvesting; X, Research and Technological Development; XI, Inspection and Control; Salvaging and Contamination; XII, Maritime/ Fishery Training; XIII, Records and Title XIV, Sanctions Regime.

The jurisdictional environment of Galicia for fishing is focused on internal waters on the Galician coast and on all those activities defined as “shellfish harvesting”, where activities take place both in internal waters and in State territorial waters (up to 12 nautical miles).

The current Galicia Fishing Law defines shellfish harvesting as: “exercising extractive activity, be it on foot or from a vessel, in the maritime or maritime-terrestrial zone(intertidal and subtidal), carried out exclusively and with specific and selective harvesting methods of one or various species of mollusc, , tunicates, echinoderms, and other marine invertebrates, for commercial ends”, a definition similar to the one proposed in “Updating the National Strategic Plan of the PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 36 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

European Fishing Fund, 2007-2013”. The case which concerns us, that is to say bivalve fishery, is an activity classified as “shellfish harvesting”.

The Galicia Fishing Law sets forth in Title VII Article 8 that entities representing the fishery sector are associated with fishermen association “ Cofradía ”, Cooperative, Producers Organization and maritime fishing associations. These organizations are considered to be representative entities because of their collaboration in decision-making that could affect the interests they represent.

In Title IV Chapter I, The Galicia Fishing Law notes that one of its objectives is to regulate the conditions of access to shellfish gathering activity under conditions of equality and in Chapter II of the same Title, it classified shellfish harvesting zones. These zones are classified as three types: a) Free shellfish-harvesting zones; b) Shellfish-harvesting authorization zones y c) Shellfish-harvesting concession zones. Upon evaluation, the fishery matches shellfish-harvesting authorization zones. Article 29b of Title IV defines shellfish-harvesting authorization zones as, “Natural banks or a portion thereof of which normal private usage rights are granted on a temporary basis for its use under an exclusive regime.” The CMRM grants these shellfish harvesting authorizations (Article 33).

In this case, there are twelve Cofradías on all the Ría de Arousa (Aguiño, Ribeira, Pobra do Caramiñal, Cabo de Cruz, Rianxo, Palmeira, Carril, Illa de Arousa, Vilanova, Vilaxoan, Cambados and O Grove) and one Sea Cooperative ( Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ría de Arousa ) which are granted administrative authorizations associated with specific shellfish harvesting banks for their harvesting. Article 35, Chapter II of the Galicia Fishing Law defines spatial limits. These authorizations are valid for 5 years and are renewable for equal periods up to a maximum of 30 years (Article 37 of the same Chapter).

Next, a description and limits of the administrative authorization area of the Cooperative are set out. Species on the UC are: Almeja fina ( Venerupis decussata ); Almeja babosa ( Venerupis corrugata); Almeja japónica ( Venerupis philippinarum ) and Berberecho ( Cerastoderma edule ), therefore, throughout Principle 3 and when reference is made to these fisheries and shellfish harvesting, reference is being made to these species.

The administrative marine environment of the Cooperative where fisheries are implementing an assessment process is located on the NW bank of the bottom of the Ría de Arousa (Pontevedra), Figure 11.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 37 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Figure 11 The circle represents the administrative authorization area of the Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ría de Arousa It has a total surface area of 259,401 m 2 which is equal to 0.00082% of the total surface area of the Ría de Arousa. The banks managed by the Cooperative represent 0.1% of the total and the estimated production from sales data is 0.3% of the bivalves unloaded in all Galicia (Source: Georreferenciación y Cartografíado de los bancos marisqueros de Galicia. Evaluación del potencial marisquero. Xunta de Galicia, 2008).

The administrative authorization surface area of the Cooperative begins from Punta Portomouro to the N, bordered by the shellfish harvesting banks of the Cofradía de Rianxo , to Punta Pedra Rubia to the S, bordered by the shellfish harvesting banks of the Cofradía de Cabo de Cruz and extending to the E up to the administrative border (Figure 12). The total length of the coastal outline in the shellfish harvesting authorization zone is 900 m in perimeter or some 787 linear m.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 38 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Figure 12 Administrative surface area of the Sociedad Cooperativa de Arousa . “Estudio Cartográfico de la Superficie Marisquera perteneciente a la Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ría de Arosa ”; A Coruña, October 2008. Depending on the shellfish harvesting mode (on foot or onboard) the total area of administrative authorization is divided into two zones. Shellfish harvesting on foot, which occurs on the intertidal zone (low tide) and has a surface area of 70,655 m 2 and shellfish harvesting onboard, which is carried out in the marine environment and has a surface area of 188,752 m 2 (Figure 13).

Figure 13 Image of the shellfish harvesting area of the Cooperative differentiating between shellfish harvesting on foot and by vessel PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 39 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

However not all the surface area of the administrative authorization is potentially usable. There are rocky zones, unproductive and difficult to access zones which reduce the potential productive surface area (See Figure 14).

Figure 14 Image of the shellfish harvesting area of the Sociedad Cooperativa de Arousa differentiating between zones for shellfish harvesting on foot and by vessel and rocky, non-usable zones In the entire authorization area, 10 usable intertidal zones for shellfish harvesting on foot and 3 subtidal areas usable for shellfish harvesting onboard were identified based on the study assigned by the Cooperative to the FISMARE company ( Estudio Cartográfico de la Superficie Marisquera perteneciente a la Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ría de Arosa; A Coruña, October 2008) and data provided by the sector (Table 1 and Figure 15). Table 1 Ratio of shellfish-harvesting banks identified by harvesting method, surface area they occupy, and dominant species in each of them (Fismare, 2008)

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 40 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Figure 15 Central photo of the area with the location of the main toponyms that are used as points of reference for the demarcation of each zone. In the following figures (16 & 17) different shellfish harvesting areas indicated in the table above are represented. For a more detailed visual description they have been organized into 5 productive zones. The first four are for shellfish harvesting on foot and the fifth for shellfish harvesting by vessel:

Figure 16 Zone 1 image: Area included between Portomouro and Punta Fontenla and Zone 2: Playa de Fontenla or Ladeira de Fontenla

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 41 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Figure 17 Image of the zones: Zone 3: Os Carreiros; Zone 4: Laxe do Puntal da Pedra Rubia; Zone 5 for shellfish harvesting by vessel: from Punta Portomouro to Laxe do Puntal de Pedra Rubia.

3.5.2. Particulars of the recognised groups with interests in the fishery The main groups recognized with interests in the fishery are framed in the classification of groups belonging to the Public Administration, both autonomous administration and state, and private entities and physical persons with economic, social, environmental, and scientific interests in the fishery (the Cooperative; fishermen’s associations; producer organizations; marketing companies; etc).

All the organizations, institutions and individuals participating in the fisheries are easily identifiable and are defined explicitly.

There is a whole series of public institutions and organs linked to the Autonomous Government like the CMRM and the DXIDP with specific roles, functions and responsibilities that act in an interrelated PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 42 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 manner and provide oversight as to the sustainability of the fishery in standards, administrative, surveillance, and control terms (Servicio de Guardacostas e Inspección Pesquera, Guardapescas del Punto de Control ); sea security ( Salvamento Marítimo ), work safety ( Capitanía Marítima ), as well as biological monitoring (BC; Zone Biologists; Xefatura Territorial , CIMA), sanitary aspects of quality of waters and food safety which includes monitoring in terms of microbiology and bio-toxins in bivalve molluscs (INTECMAR), meteorological forecasts (MeteoGalicia), and so forth.

Additionally, there are other public institutions and organs that collaborate with these institutions, especially those linked to research such as Galician universities and state marine research centres like IEO, CSIC, as well as other state organizations that backstop the surveillance in terms of food safety; poaching; coastal and marine environmental impact; etc like SEPRONA.

For the sectoral part, there are 12 fishermen associations (Cofradías ) in the Ría de Arousa with their respective groupings of shellfish harvesters and a Cooperative, la Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ría de Arousa . These organizations have responsibilities in terms of management of shellfish harvesters including sanitary quality and the quality of products supplied to the market.

The Cofradías are corporations under public law that act as consultation and cooperation organizations with the CMRM to organize the fishery sector and the harvesting activity. The Cooperative, requesting entity for certification, is the only organization of this type in the Ría de Arousa area involved in shellfish harvesting. All the other groups harvesting bivalves are organized as Cofradías .

The Cooperative is a private, socially funded organization that is internally regulated by the governing standard for cooperatives and by the Galicia Fishing Law in terms of harvesting and management of bivalve fisheries. According to the entity’s Statutes, the non-negotiable criteria for being a partner are to live in and be registered as a member of the community of Abanqueiro (Boiro- A Coruña Municipality). It is a community cooperative created in 1973. Internally, it is governed by the Statutes of the Cooperative and its General Assembly, the Steering Council and the Office of the President, the main decision-making and representative organs.

Given that one of its main objectives is the sustainable harvesting of the shellfish banks found in its administrative authorization area, the Cooperative has sufficient infrastructure: offices; authorized centre for receiving and selling catches; hatchery for the production/ breeding of bivalves; harvesting methods and instruments, and so forth and has the human and technical resources needed to carry out shellfish harvesting activity efficiently and closely guard the objectives of fishery sustainability. These shellfish harvesting banks have been successfully harvested for hundreds of years under an informal community-based model and since 1973 they have organized formally as a sea cooperative.

The Cooperative is tasked with organizing work, both of partners with a shellfish harvesting license and of those without. In this organization of work, greater equity is sought in the distribution of benefits in conjunction with sustainable management of the fishery. The Cooperative has 430 partners.

Within the Cooperative, we can identify three differentiated groups with fishery interests.

The first of these is for those partners with the license (PERMEX) to directly participate in bivalve harvesting, either on foot (30) or on board (16). This is the number of partners currently available

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 43 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 with PERMEX in the Cooperative. The shellfish harvesters are part of the Annual HPs. The income of the shellfish harvesters is stipulated by the type of task (on foot/ by vessel) and not by the harvests achieved. These are the property of the Cooperative, which obtains its income through marketing.

The second group that actively participates in the fishery is that composed of the management of the Cooperative (Office of the President), BC, the Fishing and Game Wardens and the hatchery technician. The President is responsible for making appropriate decisions for the Cooperative’s objectives. He reports to the Assembly and the Steering Council. Decisions are targeted toward improving the fishery’s yield and its coherence with the social objectives of the entity. The BC is responsible for defining the HP for the fishery and conducting biological monitoring; The Fishing Guards are tasked with surveillance and control of the harvesting area with regard to the threat of potential poachers; the exclusive role of the hatchery technician is to produce clam larvae for re- breeding; and so forth. All the actions of this group are aimed at monitoring the hatchery and defining the most appropriate action to improve its yield.

The third group is comprised of those partners that have no harvesting permit. This group participates seasonally, conducting activities related to maintenance, preparation, improvement, and control of the fishery, backstopping surveillance; regeneration of zones; extraction and cleaning of algae; classification of bivalves, etc. These activities are remunerated and conducted based on the needs of the fishery. Participation in these tasks is managed by the Cooperative based on a supply, demand and rotation demand system.

Finally, marketers of bivalve molluscs constitute another interest group for the fishery as they have a fundamental economic function. They buy the product and set prices. They are important actors in understanding certain decisions in managing the fishery. The Cooperative may negotiate the prices of the bivalves prior to harvesting. When prices are low, the Cooperative retains the decision on whether to harvest molluscs.

3.5.3. Details of consultations leading to the formulation of the management plan and the decision-making process or processes, including the recognised participants The system for management of shellfish harvesting resources is governed by Decree 423/1993, December 17 which stipulates that the harvesting of bivalves is subject to the Harvesting Strategy (HS). This decree which reinforces the prevailing standard with regard to shellfish harvesting, amended by Decree 237/2002, of July 11 , there authorizes these plans, initially valid indefinitely and converted into Annual Shellfish HPs.

The annual HP incorporates the essential scientific/technical elements to evaluate the state of bivalve fisheries and ensure more efficient and sustainable management of the fishery. Decree 423/1993, 17 December, also governs the HPs and sets the maximum daily quotas per shellfish harvester; timetable, maximum harvesting days per year; number of shellfish harvesters per fishery; opening, closure and rotation de shellfish gathering banks; species, minimum measurement, marketing, etc.

Prior to creation of HPs, the CMRM publishes an Order annually ( Order of 23 December/2011 ) where the authorizations in specific production zones, days of activity, likely harvesting times, control points, etc are set out. This Order notes the conditions needed for the HP of the following year so that once approved and implemented it guarantees sustainable harvesting of the resource.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 44 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

During this entire process, prior, during, and subsequent to the drafting of the HP, there is an open channel of mutual communication and consultation between the President of the Cooperative, the BC and the CMRM with its experts (zone biologists).

The times with more intense and frequent consultations are during the HP design process. The latter is developed by the BC in collaboration with the data provided by shellfish harvesters both on foot and onboard, in addition to guards. At the end of October of each year, it is submitted to the CMRM with the aim of including the information and data from the three first quarters of the current year and in this manner compare it to those from previous years. The PE for one year is developed in light of the results from the PE of previous years.

The HP has two differentiated sections which are consistent with the fishery’s sustainability objectives. A specific or technical section, which fundamentally corresponds with the biological and productive aspects of the fishery and the other, the general section of the HP, which contains the socioeconomic objectives of the fishery: average income per shellfish harvester; number of shellfish harvesters the fishery can support; types of preparation tasks planned, etc.

Drafting of the specific section of the HP is a function of the BC. It contains the harvesting proposal made based on the biological data available and compiled based on the history of previous HPs. Mainly primary sources are used such as that provided by guards at the fishery Control Point, semiannual samples with quarterly controls in the main productive zones (banks harvested on foot and onboard), study of measurements (on foot and onboard), densities of individuals by species, change in CPUE (catch per unit effort) for the zone harvested on foot and onboard (from which the daily harvesting limits by species are inferred), information contributed by shellfish harvesters and scientific information. An estimate of the maximum yield per species is also made.

With this information the fishery is assessed and the HP defined: likely banks, daily on foot/ by vessel quotas per shellfish harvester, monthly harvesting calendar, closed seasons, etc. In all this process of development there is open consultation with the zone biologist. Once the technical proposal of the HP is completed, it is submitted to the zone biologist for assessment and/or modification.

The general section of the HP is drafted by the BC and ratified or modified by the Steering Council of the Cooperative. It contains a socioeconomic proposal: number of licences, estimate of production and annual income, other planned activities in the shellfish gathering banks, etc. The proposal to increase the number of licenses in the fishery is made base on the estimated state of the resource (feasibility study) and the additional effort that the fishery can support. Although the final decision is within the remit of the CMRM, the proposal is in these cases always from the Cooperative.

Once the HP is approved by the Steering Council, the Cooperative’s President submits it to the relevant Xefatura Territorial (XT) in Riveir for review by the zone biologist and subsequently by the Coordinator of zone biologists for the province of A Coruña. Next, the XT sends the HP to the Central Offices of the Xunta de Galicia who re-sends it to the DXIDP for its approval and/or amendment.

Once the HP is submitted, the CMRM, with the objective of guiding the process, requires technical reports on the essential aspects of the fishery and, if required, introduces the needed improvements with the aim of ensuring sustainable harvesting of the fishery. In the event of a modification, open dialogue is established between CMRM and the BC until its final approval which is published in the

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 45 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

DOGA. Subsequently, the HP’s technical specifications are published on the CMRM website www.pescadegalicia.com and are open to the general public.

3.5.4. Arrangements for on-going consultations with interest groups As described in the previous section, the HP development process calls for interaction/communication/consultation between the BC and the agents and experts of the CRNM (zone biologists; XT; etc). Decree 423/1993, December 17, amended by Decree 237/2002 of July 11, explains the consultative nature for drafting the HP. The technical and socioeconomic development of the HP requires a very participatory consultation system between all the actors: BC, shellfish harvesters on foot and by vessel, guards and control points, zone biologist, XT, DXIDP and CMRM.

Further, the democratic working mechanism of the Cooperative as well as the closeness of the partners (neighbours) promote a permanent and current flow of information. The President, when making some decision that requires the social support of the Cooperative may meet at short notice with the Steering Council (12 elected members) and in the case of this not being sufficient may consult the General Assembly.

3.5.5. Details of non-fishery users or activities, which could affect the fishery, and arrangements for liaison and co-ordination For this fishery, only partners in the Cooperative that have a shellfish harvesting permit may access the resource. There are no other fisheries or other actors external to the fishery activity that interfere in the harvesting of bivalves in the administrative authorization area.

Impacts on the resource from other activities neighbouring the fishery (tourism; sport fishing, anchory; poaching, etc.) are not significant either and do not affect the biodiversity of the habitat or the fishery’s sustainability.

3.5.6. Objectives for the fishery The Galicia Fishing Law expressly states that the main objective of fisheries management under the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Government of Galicia is the sustainability of the fisheries with the objective of making the local populations that depend on fishery resources economically viable.

For the bivalves fishery being assessed, because they are species with a high growth rate, a short life cycle and high annual variability in recruitment, it is complex and hardly functional to carry out a complete stocks assessment. For this reason, a management strategy has been developed based on short term objectives (Annual HP’s) where a Precautionary Approach is used, taking measures such as: increasing the harvesting size for clams by some millimeters over the regulations; establishing maximum harvesting limits on a precautionary basis; rotating the shellfish harvesting banks to avoid excess harvesting; restoring unproductive areas; preparing bivalve banks to improve their productive yield (see section 3.5.9); eliminating algae and other organic waste from the shellfish harvesting banks; depositing young clams, etc.

From the socioeconomic viewpoint, the HP aims to have the fishery provide appropriate annual income for its members and, at least, maintain the same number of work positions in the fishery. As previously noted, one objective of the Cooperative us to ensure the greatest number of partners possible benefit from the fishery.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 46 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

To promote the achievement of these objectives, fundamentally those related to resources and improvement of the fishery, the CMRM offers annual meetings for public assistance targeting associations of shellfish harvesters and cooperatives. These public meetings act as positive incentives that can contribute to improving the sustainability objectives. During 2011 and 2012 there have not been any oficial announcement especific for Cooperatives (although for Cofradías) for these purpose.

The entrepreneurial and private nature of the Cooperative facilitates the development of more efficient marketing strategies than in the case of the associations and obtains average prices for its products that are a bit higher. This source of income is, together with the partners quotas (once they enter the Cooperative as partners), its main source of financing. The Cooperative’s Statutes establish and define how profits are distributed to all partners. There is a statutory agreement by General Assembly where it was decided that 100% of the profits are to be re-invested into the Cooperative.

Currently, the Cooperative defray the wages of all the personnel partner employed for the management of the fishery: 1 biologist (responsible for conducting monitoring and control of the fishery), a specialized technician in the hatchery and 4 guards.

3.5.7. Outline the fleet types or fishing categories participating in the fishery Shellfish harvesters with PERMEX participate in the fishery; as well as the guards; BC and also the staff-partners of the Cooperative who are hired specifically for work classifying bivalves, breeding, work on preparing the Administrative Authorization, etc.

The extraction-harvesting of bivalves is carried out by shellfish harvesting on foot (30 gatherers) and shellfish harvesting onboard (16 boats).

Shellfish harvesting on foot takes place on the shellfish harvesting banks located on the inter-tidal and sub-tidal border of the administrative authorization area. The limit of the sub-tidal area for the shellfish harvesters on foot is that sea level cannot be higher than their waist. The highest low tide marks the limit.

Extraction takes place during low tide in the emerged zones to those which are accessed on foot and in accordance with the calendar proposed in the HP. The main tool used for their extraction is the grubber hoe , a type of hoe that is used individually and allows the substratum to be lifted and reveal bivalves that are then manually harvested. The bullrake with a short pole is also used, similar to that explained in the section on shellfish harvesting onboard. Occasionally, above all for the extraction of the cockle when densities are high, rakes are used.

Shellfish harvesting onboard takes place from a boat, generally some 5 m in length, on the sub-tidal coastal areas in the administrative authorization area. The instrument used for its harvesting is called a bullrake with a long pole , and is individually handled. It consists of a long and flexible pole of up to 8 m in length of which the lower extremity has a metallic frame 40-50 cm wide, with separated grills enough to make an appropriate selection of the regulatory sizes. On the upper part of this pole is a line of teeth, with a regulatory separation, which have the objective of scraping off the sandy surface of the bottom and selectively extracting bivalves.

3.5.8. Details of those individuals or groups granted rights of access to the fishery, and particulars of the nature of those rights PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 47 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Access rights to the fishery come from the common law rights of neighbours in the community of Abanqueiro . There is scarce historical documentation about the fishery, only some family ownership documents. The oral history which speaks of how the inhabitants of this community harvested bivalves from the adjacent seaboard. They divided it and created parcels for family/private use in the administrative concession regime.

En 1973, they decided to transfer all the production parcels for community use through the establishment of the Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ría de Arousa . Between 1973 and 1988, with this marine space lacking legal protection (annulling of the concession regime), the resources became freely accessible. This situation created conflicts between the community and fishermen from other locations. In 1988 the Cooperative was granted use and access to the resources of the area under the administrative concession regime, a regime, close to privatization, which would permit the Cooperative to manage access rights to the resource as well as manage the resource itself without interference from the public authorities. This period, according to the Cooperative’s data (1990-91- 92 and 93), saw the most productive years. Historically high production was reached. In April 1993, the Administration revoked the concession regime alleging a procedural error (DOGA-28 Abril-1993), switching to an administrative authorization regime as of 1994. From that point forward, the Cooperative guarantees the rights of all its partners to access shellfish harvesting resources and the CMRM, based on the HP, regulates the number of PERMEX that the fishery could support. There are no conflicts with users from other populations.

Decree 114/2007 of May 31, amendment of Decree 425/1993 of December 17, by which the prevailing standard is reinforced, govern the harvesting permit to exercise fishery and shellfish gathering activity. PERMEX for shellfish harvesting on foot are by name and not transferable. PERMEX for vessels are conceded to the vessel and are only transferrable through the sale of the latter. These transactions are governed by Order 6 of April 2004 which establishes procedures for issuing, renewal, transportation, and transmission of boat harvesting permits. If a partner from the Cooperative sells the boat/Permex to another who is not a partner, the latter cannot exercise activity within the administrative authorization as it is the Cooperative that has the capacity to assign and guarantee this right. The Cooperative’s Statutes make it clear that only partners from the Cooperative have potential right to access the resources and only the CMRM can limit the number of PERMEX that the fishery can support depending on the results of the HP’s.

In order to carry out extractive activity in the spatial environment of the administrative authorization of the Cooperative, having the respective permit is required (PERMEX) as is being a partner of the Cooperative. The two conditions are non-negotiable. All collectors of bivalves in the fishery being assessed fulfil these requirements.

3.5.9. Description of the measures agreed upon for the regulation of fishing in order to meet the objectives within a specified period. These may include general and specific measures, precautionary measures, contingency plans, mechanisms for emergency decisions, etc. In the annual HP for 2012 the main measures governing each of the species in the fishery are provided with the objectives of economic, environmental, and social sustainability.

Because this is a fishery centred on short-lived, fast-growing resources with high fishing variability, specific and general precautionary measures are established throughout the design of the HP, such as the control of minimum sizes per species; effort per species and zone; harvesting limits per

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 48 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 species and per day; periods of closure; rotation of harvesting zones, etc. but also control and surveillance measures throughout the year.

Additionally, there is permanent monitoring of the fishery and of the changes seen in it through the BC, the President of the Cooperative, shellfish harvesters, and guards. In the event that changes are significant, measures appropriate for the problem are taken, subject to consulting with the CMRM or, depending on the size of the problem, a contingency plan is defined in collaboration with the zone biologist and/or the zone biologist’s coordinator. With permission from the CMRM, it is then implemented.

In the case of shellfish harvesting on foot and onboard, the months of extraction are defined in a differentiated form, calendar of days of activity by month by shellfish harvesting method; daily harvesting limits for different species per shellfish harvester and shellfish harvesting method; the areas of extraction (described under the first point of this section) as well as the months of closure and/or if it were the case (unusual mortality), paralysis of the fishery.

The maximum number of days set by the 2012 HP for shellfish harvesters on foot is 120 days a year, 10 days per month.

The maximum harvest per day and per harvester depends on the species: Venerupis Decussatus : 4 kg; Venerupis Corrugata : 4 kg; Venerupis philippinarum : 12 kg; Cerastoderma edule : 10 Kg. Every 30 minutes the shellfish harvested by shellfish gatherers is taken for classification, under the supervision of the guards, and passes to the selection and classification tables by species and size. This is a task carried out by partners (men and women) hired for that purpose by the Cooperative.

The maximum number of days set by the HP for shellfish harvesters onboard is 180 days per year, from January to December. They harvest 12 days per month with the exception of July, August, and September when they can harvest for 21 days.

The limits for harvesting onboard are: Venerupis Decussatus : 10 kg; Venerupis Corrugata : 10 kg; Venerupis philippinarum : 8 kg; and Cerastoderma edule : 10 Kg. Every 45 minutes, the Cooperative’s guards conduct a control of the extractions (control of measurement, objective species, work zones...etc), in addition to collecting the shellfish extracted during that time for its classification by species and measurement.

The HP’s have a financial plan, surveillance plan, and a sanctions regime, monitoring of harvesting and a plan of actions to be implemented to improve the fishery. During the summer period (especially on weekends) surveillance is stepped up with partners. The Cooperative also has an expert specialized in management of the hatchery to look after cultivation needs and breeding required by the seeding processes.

During the bivalve extraction process, the four guards control the activity from the classification of the product until its packaging in bags before it is sold. These final activities are reinforced by the BC, the President or another appointed person, so that all shellfish that does not reach the minimum legal size is returned to nature.

The HP also considers contingency plans and possible actions in the event of unforeseen circumstances. Because it is also a fishery that is sensitive to saline changes (rains), temperature changes (summer/winter), silting of shellfish harvesting banks by fluvial sediment deposits, seasonal

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 49 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 algae invasions ( Ulva lactuta ), etc. that could reduce the estimated production or produce significant clam or cockle deaths as occurred in the years 2006 and 2012 respectively. BC, the President of the Cooperative, and the rest of the members in the HP (especially the 4 guards) undertake continuous and close monitoring of changes in the administrative authorization zone.

Therefore, some of these preparation and contingency plan activities that turn into strategies and actions aimed at minimizing the impact of these environmental hazards and promoting optimal production are defined in the HP. See, section 3.1.1.

The decisions for these actions are delegated by the Steering Council of the Cooperative in the Office of the President and with the BC in a collaborative form. Carrying out these actions requires requesting respective permits and projects from the CMRM for each type of intervention with a minimum of 72 hours advance notice (subject to a report from the zone biologist), preparing a cost estimate; using own funds or financed by the CMRM via public calls; mobilizing human resources to implement actions, etc. From 1994-2003, the Cooperative has assumed all costs in managing the fishery: preparation; staff; etc.

3.5.10. Details of any planned education and training for interest groups There are training courses promoted by the CMRM that are fundamentally aimed at producers, experts and guards. Training courses to obtain the Permex are mandatory to exercise the activity. There are other types of training courses that are voluntary and aimed at the improving performance of the activity or to fill management positions in the Cooperative. All courses are free and where there is a cost, it is covered by the Cooperative.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 50 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

4. Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment

At the time of writing this document the fishery does not overlap with any other certified fishery or applicant.

4.2 Previous assessments

In 2008, the Cooperative, in conjunction with the Fishing and Maritime Affairs Council (Consellería de Pesca y Asuntos Marítimos ), requested to the OIA, the certifying entity, that a Pre-Assessment be conducted against the principles of the MSC.

The analysis carried out by the certifying entity, OIA, is far from what was completed in this full assessment owing mainly to the changes made by the MSC in certain matters including RBF and the peculiarities surrounding enhanced fisheries and introduced species.

The results from the pre-assessment were presented in the form of a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats). At the time of making the Pre-assessment there was no specific format for the presentation of results. There now is one and the MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template document (Version 1.0, August 2011) must be observed. The technical report includes, in partial form, detailed information regarding the indicators for consideration by the OIA of the key issues in relation to the MSC Principles and Criteria. The tables presented in the report assess the responses obtained but are only to be used as guides, given that "the quantitative assessment of the fishery is conducted during the Full Assessment".

4.3 Assessment Methodologies

The assessment process uses the MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.2-10 of January 2012 document. The format used for the pre-assessment report is the MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template, Version 1.2 – 10th January 2012. The announcement of the assessment tree was done the first of February 2012 , in this moment the assessment team considered this fishery as an enhanced fishery in two ways: Habitat Modified Fishery due to works on substrate carried on to increase production and Hatch and Catch Fishery due to hatchery activities for two species: Venerupis corrugata and Venerupis philippinarum Due to this situation, an additional Perfomance Indicator concerning the outcome, management and information was necessary to include to assessment the potential effect of the fisheries on the genetic stucture of wild populations of the pullet carpet shell (HAC fishery for this species) on the default assessment tree. In the case of the manila clam all impacts were analysed separately since this is an exotic species. Therefore, although being also produced in hatchery, the impacts on the genetics structure of wild population were not assessed for the mainla clam. As set out in the Certification Requirements point CK2.1.5. “ Enhanced HAC bivalve fisheries shall also be scored against the Genetics PIs 1.1.4, 1.2.5, and 1.2.6 ” (See Appendix 1.1).

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 51 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Furthermore as it was describe in Point 3.1.2. the manila clam ( Venerupis philippinarum ) is an introduced species, thus is necessary to add an Additional Performance Indicators that will enable the assessment of the potential effect of this introduced species on the ecosystem. The assessment team considering the terms of the MSC Certification Requirements has address 3 Performance Indicators to prevent further ecosystem impacts that may have occurred as a result of the introduction of the specie. See Appendix 1.1 : Tables PI 2.5.1 M, PI 2.5.2 M, PI 2.5.3 M. The assessment team allowed 30 days from the date of posting on the MSC website this modification to inform stakeholders, afterwards the confirmation of the use of the default assessment tree contained within the MSC Certification Requirements V1.2 was published the 6 th of march. Regarding the used of the default assessment tree and after the 30 day period of comment on the Public Comment Draft Report published on the MSC website. The MSC performed their technical oversight, identifying diference between the initial tree published on the 2th of Jannuary and the one that appears in the PCDR. With the purpose of applying the MSC Scheme properly, Bureau Veritas Certification published a Communication for Stakeholders and amended the PCDR in this new version.

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits 26 th January 2012 saw the publication on the MSC website of the notice concerning the site assessment by the audit team to the fishery's stakeholders, see Announcement of site assessments marine stewardship council certification. The communication process with regard to the fishery's stakeholders was implemented as follows: Contact was first made by phone to explain the procedure for assessment against the MSC standard and our interest in their participation during this stage of information gathering, as stakeholder in the process. Once their participation was accepted, they were emailed about the proposed visit to their facilities (date and place) and the information that would be requested from them at such time. The information to be gathered during meetings would be mainly related to: the form of carrying out both harvesting and enhacement activities, management plan, environmental impact of the fishery, bycatch, presence of ETPs, compliance with the control system, IUU, sampling design. After confirmation of the date, time and place they were sent an official letter about the visit from the Bureau Veritas audit team and their participation as stakeholders in the fishery. This letter requested more detailed information in accordance with the agency and role of the recipient in question. The visits took place during the week of 6-9th April across different areas of the Galician territory (See Figure 18). The agenda was the following:

Monday, 5th March, 2012

Task team meeting 8:00 – 18:00 Place: Vigo

Wednesday, 7 th March 2012

8:30 - 13:30 Cooperative of Arousa

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 52 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Place: Boiro Luis Santos, Biologist of the Cooperative

Department for the Countryside and Sea 13:30 - 15:30 Place: Boiro Carlos Vázquez Díaz, Area Biologist for Ribeira

Thrusday, 8 th March 2012

Department for the Countryside and Sea Place: Pontevedra 9:00 - 11:30 Rosa Ramonell, Area Biologists Coordinator for Pontevedra Maria del Carmen García Alonso, Area Biologist for Ría de Pontevedra

Deputy Directorate-General for Coastguards of Galicia Place: Santiago 12:00 - 14:00 Lino Sexto, head of services Secretariat-General for the Sea José Molares, Deputy Director for Planning and Marine Resources

14:30 - 15:30 Lunch

AGAMAR 17:00 - 19:00 Place: Santiago Natalia Laiño, association president

Friday 9 th March 2012

Centre for Marine Research (CIMA) Alejandro Guerra, Director of CIMA 9:00 - 11.00 Place: Vigo Alberto de Coo, scientist of CIMA

University of Vigo 12.00 - 13.00 Elsa Vázquez Otero, Professor of Zoology Place: Vigo

Conference Call with ONGS 13.00 - 15.00 Place: Vigo

Figure 18 Locations visited during the information gathering sessions

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 53 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The following is the list of participants in both site meetings as well as other contacts involving exchange of information via email, See Table 2. See Appendix 3.

Table 2 Stakeholders contacts of the fishery ORGANIZATION CONTACT ADDRESS Portomouro s/n. Abanqueiro.15938 – Cooperative of Arousa Luis Santos Boiro – CORUÑA Praza dos Mariñeiros, s/n; 15960 Area Biologist for Ribeira Carlos Vázquez Ribeira. CORUÑA Federación Gallega de Cofradías de Pescadores Benito González Department for the Countryside and the Sea Rosa Ramonell Rúa Fernández Ladreda 43, 4ª planta, Department for the Countryside and the Sea Maria del Carmen Garcia 36003 (PONTEVEDRA) Secretariat - General for the Sea José Molares Rua de Valiño número 71 CP 15703 Deputy Directorate - General for Countryside Santiago de Compostela and Sea Lino Sexto Oscar García AGAMAR Compostela Agamar Natalia Laiño R/ Miguel Ferro Caaveiro, Nº 12, 1º Joaquin Espinosa 15707Santiago de Compostela (A Elsa Vázquez Universidad de Vigo: Campus University of Vigo Juanjo Pasante Universitario C.P. 36.310 Vigo Gonzalo Macho Juan Freire Botana

Calle de la Maestranza, 9 15001 A Paulino Martínez University of Coruña Coruña Ana Insua

Jose Mora Alejandro Guerra Pedras do Coron s/n 36620 Vilanova CIMA Alberto de Coo de Arousa ONGs: WWF; ADEGA; Greenpeace; Oceana, Oficinas Bureau Veritas C/ Conde de Accion Costeira; Asociacion por la defensa de Torrecedeira 67/69. entresuelo VIGO la ria

The next site visit was conducted on 26th June 2012 in order to perform the RBF at the premises of the Fishermen's association of San Martiño de Bueu throughout the entire morning. Due to the complexity required by the fishery and given that the meeting took place jointly with the fishery named above, it was decided to hold another meeting with the parties involved in the client facilities, see Risk Based Framework Meeting 5th September 2012 . Section 4.4.3. and Appendices provide greater information on the procedure that took place during the day, the participants and results obtained.

4.4.2 Consultations The following stakeholders were interviewed during the site visits carried out in Galicia on the 7th to the 9th March 2012. FISHERMEN ASSOCIATION: Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa (Cooperative) FISHERY MANAGEMENT BODIES Consellería do Medio Rural e do Mar (Department for the Countryside and Sea) Secretaria Xeral do Mar (Secretariat-General for the Sea) Subdirección Xeral Gardacostas de Galicia (Deputy Directorate-General for Coastguards)

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND UPSTREAM SECTOR Asociación galega de empresarios depuradores de moluscos (Galician Association of Mollusc- Processing Entrepreneurs)

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 54 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Asociación Nacional de Fabricantes de Conservas (National Association of Preserves Manufacturers) Unión Gallega de Cooperativas el Mar (Galician Union of Sea Cooperatives)

AUCTIONS/ LANDING POINTS Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa (Cooperative) SCIENTIFIC AND RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS University of A Coruña University of Vigo University of Santiago de Compostela INTECMAR CIMA

ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS AND OTHERS FISMARE, Innovation for Sustainability AGAMAR

The information obtained during meetings with stakeholders was significantly broad and variable depending on the persons interviewed. At the start of each meeting Jacobo de Novoa gave an introduction about the MSC and the assessment process to be used for the fishery. The different Units of Certification were clarified. The assistants then presented themselves and the meeting commenced. After presenting themselves, the MSC Principles experts asked pertinent questions about the doubts that arose from assessing the initial information and requested any other information or documentation that might be of assistance when scoring the fishery. The following is a summary of the issues covered: Sociedad Cooperativa • Formation of the Cooperative Gallega Ria de Arousa • Design and communication process behind the Management Plan • Suggestions for improving the Plan • Monitoring of compliance and poaching • Traditional rights • Contributions, sizes, harvesting process, predatory species • Technical assistance tasks • Fishmare Study • Sampling design • Bycatch and retained species Area Biologist for Ribeira • Monitoring of compliance and poaching • Sampling design • Data analysis • Management plan • Impact of exotic species on the ecosystem • Bycatch and retained species Department for the • Design and communication process behind the Management Countryside and Sea plans PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 55 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

• Times, quotas, checkpoints, number of fishermen • Technical assistance tasks • Figure "section agent" • Fishmare Tasks • Monitoring of compliance and poaching • Fishery assessment in terms of sustainability • Impact of exotic species on the ecosystem Deputy Directorate - • Poaching control and monitoring actions General for Coastguards • Studies on biomass, status of stock • Profitability of the activity Secretariat-General for • Impact of exotic species on the ecosystem the Sea AGAMAR • Biology of the target species • Management plans • Distribution and abundance of the target species in Ria de Arousa • Stock status and reference points • Impact of exotic species on the ecosystem • Bycatch and ecosystem studies Centre for Marine • Clam predators Research (CIMA) • Ecosystem impacts due to the removal of predators • Impact of exotic species on the ecosystem • ETP species • Fishing impact • Bycatch and retained species University of Vigo • Biology and Ecology of the target species • Management plan • Distribution and abundance of the species in Ria Arousa • Recruitment • Stock status and reference points • Fishing impact • Ecosystem impacts due to the removal of predators • Impact of exotic species on the ecosystem • Bycatch and ecosystem studies

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques All communications regarding the assessment process were made by email to all stakeholders in the fishery as well as publicly through the MSC website, see Clam and cockles fishery from Ria the Arousa – MSC . The assessment process was also published in the national and international press. (See Figure 19).

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 56 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Figure 19 News regarding the fishery’s assessment process After the team has compiled and analysed all relevant technical, written and anecdotal information, they scored the fishery against the Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts in the final tree. For a first approximation of the fishery's score, the 27th and 28 th of June with the information collected and analysed, the audit team held a meeting at Bureau Veritas office in Vigo. At this meeting, the most conflictual points of the fishery were discussed and the RBF meeting date was set. In order for the fishery to achieve certification, none of the Performance Indicators can score below 60. In order to achieve a score of 80, all of the 60 scoring issues and all of the 80 issues shall be met and each scoring issue shall be justified by supporting rationale. Used of the Risk-Based assessment Framework (RBF) The auditing team publicly communicated via the MSC webpage the use of the decision tree within the MSC Certification Requirements V1.2, considering for some behavioural indicators the need to use the analysis methodology according to Risk-Based assessment Framework (RBF) . Following this publication and given the need to decide on another date to carry out the methodology for the RBF, confirmation of the behavioural indicators which would be worked on and the date of the meeting were communicated on the MSC website. The meeting took place at one of the public facilities of Boiro owing to the number of persons invited; it was held from 9:30 to 3:00. (See Figure 20) PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 57 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Figure 20 Attendes to the RBF meeting held the 5 th of September

The performance indicators which may be assessed using the RBF are listed below along with a justification for the use of the RFB in each instance: PI 1.1.1. Stock Status There is limited information available about the absolute size of the stock for these species (there is information for 2009). As is identified in table CC1: Restrictions on the use of the RBF (Annex CC), the performance indicator for 1.1.1. stock status shall be done through a qualitative analysis (Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis – SICA) and then a semi-quantitative analysis (Productivity Susceptibility Analysis – PSA). According to the results of the RBF meeting, the highest impact factor for the 4 species (the most vulnerable scoring element) with respect to the fishery relates to its own activity. As there are multiple UC and specifically multiple species (4), under this scenario the team prepared 4 SICA tables and therefore 4 PSA (See Subsections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2. for the results). PI 2.2.1. By-catch (discarded) species The information published on the MSC website regarding the bycatch was, on the one hand, the discards in the fishery carried out in the sub-tidal area, and, on the other hand, the removal of predators and dead seaweed. After the RBF meeting and in accordance with the stakeholders PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 58 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 opinion the team decided that the effects of all enhancement activities should only be considered in the assement of the PI related to ecosystem impacts. After consulting to MSC, the team decided to change this issue in order to be evaluated at the RBF ecosystem. For this PI, it was performed a qualitative analysis (Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis – SICA) and then a semi-quantitative analysis (Productivity Susceptibility Analysis – PSA) taking into account the principal species: Netted dog whelk ( Nassarius reticulatus ) and the Swimming crab ( Liocarcinus spp.), in both cases the most vulnerable scoring element is related to its own activity (See Subsections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2. for the results). PI 2.4.1 – Habitats Generic information is available to describe the effect of the fishing method on benthic habitats considering some of the enhancement activities that may affect habitats: Enhancement activities that have an effect on sediment include: maintenance of the substrate; loose the substrate with grubber hoes and rakes; removal of dead seaweed; addition of sand in the subtidal area; using of nets to protect seed (See section 3.1.1). During the RBF meeting the impact of the previously described activities in the habitat was discussed, separately from those that were being conducted in the intertidal and subtidal zone. Finally it was clarified that the preparation of the substratum only takes place for the shellfish harvesting zone on foot and therefore in the intertidal zone, while the addition of dry commodities is carried out in the subtidal zone, that is to say in the shellfishing onboard zone. That being said, in the RBF assessment a SICA table was created for soft bottoms (mainly sand) in the intertidal área where the most vulnerable scoring element is related to the sediment loosen, and a SICA table for soft bottoms (mainly mud) in the subtidal area, where the sand addition activity is the most vulnerable score element. According to MSC guidelines, PSA is not applicable to this PI (See Subsection 8.2.1. for the result). PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystems As explained in PI 2.2.1. the activity of predator removal carried out in the subtidal area (shellfish collection onboard) was moved to this point to be evaluated by the RBF. For this PI was done a qualitative analysis (Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis – SICA) the most vulnerable scoring element is related to its own activity, the semi-quantitative analysis (Productivity Susceptibility Analysis – PSA) is not applicable. (See Subsection 8.2.1. for the result). Regarding the species evaluated for Principle 2, during the RBF meeting the team consulted to the stakeholders and only two species were identified: Netted dog whelk ( Nassarius reticulatus ) and the Swimming crab ( Liocarcinus spp.) This species were evaluated and scored in the SICA and PSA related to Bycatch species.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 59 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

5 Traceability

5.1 Target eligibility Date

The nominal date from which the clams and cockle fishery could bear the MSC ecolabel will be the date of certification of the fishery. This date would be the 22 th of April. This means that any clams and cockles caught by the certified fleet following that date will be eligible to enter the chain of custody as certified product if and when certification is ultimately granted.

The CAB considered that on the certification date, the traceability and the segregation systems would be properly implemented so as to ensure that all clams and cockles identified and sold as certified by the fishery originate from the certified fishery.

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery

5.2.1. A description of the tracking, tracing and segregation systems within the fishery The fishery MP sets out the number of maximum authorized days per year on which bivalve harvesting can take place, in both of its modalities on foot or onboard, as well as the daily maximum quotas of the different bivalve species by fishing mode. The specific days of each month on which they can be collected are not defined. The Cooperative must process the collection permissions before the CMRM giving a minimum notice of 72 hours based on the following criteria: tides (low tide ebb level); prices (market and agreements with buyers), the fishery's status and the volume of confirmed purchase orders. Once the days have been decided based on these criteria the tasks involved in the collection are planned and executed. These guidelines are made at the beginning of each month for every month of the year. If the prices of the different bivalves fail to reach a sustainable minimum, or if the fishery's situation is not correct, then the Cooperative suspends the harvesting activity and waits until the prices or the situation improve. Once the date of commencement of the work has been determined, a message is sent to the fishermen involved in the fishery (Permex) and staff (other Cooperative members) who will be participating in the other planned activities. The fishery guardan is responsible for overseeing the work in the sea-based shellfish harvesting at the request of the President and the BC. At the start of the day, they record and distribute the shell fishermen in the previously designated areas. Every 45 minutes they inspect their work in addition to taking the collected shellfish from them in order to transfer it to the classification table. In the case of shellfish harvesting on foot, the President and the BC are responsible for the harvesting work. At the start of the day, they record and distribute the shell fishermen on foot in the previously designated areas. Every 30 minutes and under the President and the Biologist's supervision, a group of Cooperative members will take the shellfish collected to be classified. The classification table referred to above is located on the beach in which a specific group of Cooperative members perform the work of classifying the catch by species and size, See Figure 21. Bivalves which are not large enough or whose price is lower than that set by the sale/trade point agreement, are resettled in specific areas, always under the supervision of the President and the BC.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 60 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Figure 21 Women of the Cooperative carrying out the classification tasks. Source: Luis Santos (BC)

Different types of clams of legal size are arranged in specific PVC boxes bearing the Cooperative's logo and the cockles are put in 20 kg mesh bags. Their weight is checked and they are then moved by foot to the authorized sale point (fish market) in the Cooperative's facilities. The product may be sold by auction or through commercial agreements that the Cooperative has with tradesmen. If the product is sold through auction, buyers (intermediaries) purchase the product by participating in a stop-out price auction. The Cooperative documents the sale and from that point onwards no longer has control over the product. Where the sale is the result of an agreement between the Cooperative and a buyer, they will finalize the agreement once they have checked the product's quality and the amount extracted. The sale is documented and as before, the Cooperative loses, from that point onwards, any control over the product. The buyers representing the fish cleaning companies present and accredit themselves at the sale point, prior to the start of the auction. The sale point has a binding Charter approved by the directorate of fisheries and which specifies both the buyer and the seller’s rights and obligations. At the end of the auction, a sales note for the product together with the corresponding registration document, issued electronically, is delivered to the buyers. Buyers, in turn, are responsible for transferring the purchased product in isotherm vehicles to the fish treatment plants they represent. The Cooperative is currently in the process of setting up a fish cleaning plant of its own in order to close the entire sale cycle.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 61 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

5.2.2. An evaluation of the opportunity for substitution of certified fish with non-certified fish prior to and at the point of landing. Only members of the Cooperative can enter the collection and classification areas. Members of the Cooperative supervised by the fishery warden carry out the entire process from capture to landing up until transfer to the authorized point of sale. There is no possibility of adding or substituting products, which come from other fisheries. Landing ports for similar products are quite distant and do not have authorization to land any type of product within the confines of the Cooperative's facilities 5.2.3. Possibility of vessels fishing outside the unit of certification This possibility does not exist since only the Cooperative's fishermen can fish in the area. 5.2.4. Details of the use of trans-shipping in the fishery As explained, it is a fishery, which is very near the coast and adjoins the Cooperative's own reception facilities for its products. All bivalves are transferred to this point in a tractor, given its proximity.

5.3 Elegibility to enter futher chains of custody

As it was identified in point 3.1. Unit of Certification there is just one point of landing belonging to the Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa located in Abanqueiro where the resources caught in the manner defined in the Unit of Certification (Section 3.1) shall be eligible to enter the Chain of Custody. Chain of Custody should commence following the first point of landing, at which point the product shall be eligible to carry the MSC logo (under restrictions imposed by the MSC Chain of Custody standard). 5.3.1 Parties eligible to use the fishery certificate All members of the Cooperative targeting the clams and cockles stock using walking or onboard hand devices as fishing method are eligible to use the fishery certificate.

5.4 Elegibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to enter futher chains of custody

There are not catches of non target stock(s) that are inseparable or practicably inseparable (IPI) from target stock(s).

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 62 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

6 Evaluation Results

6.1 Principle Level Scores and summary of scores

UC01.- Cerastoderma edule collected onboards with hand devices

Principle Wt Component Wt PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight in Contribution to (L1) (L2) (L3) Principle Score Principle Score Either Either One 1 Outcome 0,5 1.1.1 Stock status 0,5 0,25 96 24,00 1.1.2 Reference points 0,5 0,25 80 20,00 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding Management 0,5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,25 0,125 85 10,63 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 Two 1 Retained 0,2 2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.1.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.1.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 Bycatch 0,2 2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.2.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 2.2.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 ETP species 0,2 2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.3.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 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 85 5,67 2.4.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.1 M Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.5.2 M Management 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 2.5.3 M Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 Three 1 Governance 0,5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 3.1.3 responsibilitiesLong term objectives 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable 0,25 0,125 90 11,25 Fishery specific 0,5 3.2.1 Fisheryfishing specific objectives 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0,2 0,1 100 10,00 3.2.4 Research plan 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 3.2.5 Management performance 0,2 0,1 90 9,00 evaluation Principle Score

Principle 1 – Target Species 84,6

Principle 2 – Ecosystem 88,0

Principle 3 – Management System 89,3

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 63 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

UC02.- Cerastoderma edule collected on foot with hand devices

Principle Wt Component Wt PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight in Contribution to (L1) (L2) (L3) Principle Score Principle Score Either Either One 1 Outcome 0,5 1.1.1 Stock status 0,5 0,25 96 24,00 1.1.2 Reference points 0,5 0,25 80 20,00 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding Management 0,5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,25 0,125 85 10,63 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 Two 1 Retained 0,2 2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.1.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.1.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 Bycatch 0,2 2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.2.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 2.2.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 ETP species 0,2 2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.3.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.3.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 Habitats 0,2 2.4.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.4.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 2.4.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.1 M Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.5.2 MManagement 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 2.5.3 M Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 Three 1 Governance 0,5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 3.1.3 responsibilitiesLong term objectives 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable 0,25 0,125 90 11,25 Fishery specific 0,5 3.2.1fishing Fishery specific objectives 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0,2 0,1 100 10,00 3.2.4 Research plan 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 3.2.5 Management performance 0,2 0,1 90 9,00 evaluation

Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 84,6 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 89,3 Principle 3 – Management System 89 ,3

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 64 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

UC03.- Venerupis decussata collected onboards with hand devices

Principle Wt Component Wt PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight in Contribution to (L1) (L2) (L3) Principle Score Principle Score Either Either One 1 Outcome 0,5 1.1.1 Stock status 0,5 0,25 96 24,00 1.1.2 Reference points 0,5 0,25 80 20,00 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding Management 0,5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,25 0,125 85 10,63 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 Two 1 Retained 0,2 2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.1.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.1.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 Bycatch 0,2 2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.2.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 2.2.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 ETP species 0,2 2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.3.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 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 85 5,67 2.4.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.1 M Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.5.2 MManagement 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 2.5.3 M Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 Three 1 Governance 0,5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 3.1.3 responsibilitiesLong term objectives 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable 0,25 0,125 90 11,25 Fishery specific 0,5 3.2.1fishing Fishery specific objectives 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0,2 0,1 100 10,00 3.2.4 Research plan 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 3.2.5 Management performance 0,2 0,1 90 9,00 evaluation

Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 84,6 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 88 ,0 Principle 3 – Management System 89 ,3

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 65 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

UC04.- Venerupis decussata collected on foot with hand devices

Principle Wt Component Wt PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight in Contribution to (L1) (L2) (L3) Principle Score Principle Score Either Either One 1 Outcome 0,5 1.1.1 Stock status 0,5 0,25 96 24,00 1.1.2 Reference points 0,5 0,25 80 20,00 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding Management 0,5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,25 0,125 85 10,63 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 Two 1 Retained 0,2 2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.1.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.1.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 Bycatch 0,2 2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.2.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 2.2.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 ETP species 0,2 2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.3.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.3.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 Habitats 0,2 2.4.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.4.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 2.4.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.1 M Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.5.2 M Management 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 2.5.3 M Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 Three 1 Governance 0,5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 3.1.3 responsibilitiesLong term objectives 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable 0,25 0,125 90 11,25 Fishery specific 0,5 3.2.1 Fisheryfishing specific objectives 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0,2 0,1 100 10,00 3.2.4 Research plan 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 3.2.5 Management performance 0,2 0,1 90 9,00 evaluation

Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 84,6 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 89,3 Principle 3 – Management System 89,3

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 66 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

UC05.- Venerupis philippinarum collected onboards with hand devices

Principle Wt Component Wt PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight in Contribution to Score (L1) (L2) (L3) Principle Principle Score Either Either One 1Outcome 0,5 1.1.1 Stock status 0,5 0,25 96 24,00 1.1.2 Reference points 0,5 0,25 80 20,00 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding Management 0,5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,25 0,125 85 10,63 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 Two 1Retained 0,2 2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.1.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.1.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 Bycatch 0,2 2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.2.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 2.2.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 ETP species 0,2 2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.3.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 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 85 5,67 2.4.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.1 M Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.5.2 M Management 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 2.5.3 M Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 Three 1Governance 0,5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 3.1.3 Longresponsibilities term objectives 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 0,25 0,125 90 11,25 Fishery specific 0,5 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0,2 0,1 100 10,00 3.2.4 Research plan 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 3.2.5 Management performance 0,2 0,1 90 9,00 evaluation

Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 84,6 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 88,0 Principle 3 – Management System 89,3

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 67 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

UC06.- Venerupis philippinarum collected on foot with hand devices

Principle Wt Component Wt PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight in Contribution to Score (L1) (L2) (L3) Principle Principle Score Either Either One 1Outcome 0,5 1.1.1 Stock status 0,5 0,25 96 24,00 1.1.2 Reference points 0,5 0,25 80 20,00 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding Management 0,5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,25 0,125 85 10,63 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 Two 1Retained 0,2 2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.1.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.1.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 Bycatch 0,2 2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.2.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 2.2.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 ETP species 0,2 2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.3.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.3.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 Habitats 0,2 2.4.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.4.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 2.4.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.1 M Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.5.2 M Management 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 2.5.3 M Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 Three 1Governance 0,5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 3.1.3 Longresponsibilities term objectives 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 0,25 0,125 90 11,25 Fishery specific 0,5 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0,2 0,1 100 10,00 3.2.4 Research plan 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 3.2.5 Management performance 0,2 0,1 90 9,00 evaluation

Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 84,6 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 89,3 Principle 3 – Management System 89 ,3

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 68 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

UC07.- Venerupis Corrugata collected onboards with hand devices

Principle Wt Component Wt PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight in Contribution to (L1) (L2) (L3) Principle Score Principle Score Either Either One 1Outcome 0,5 1.1.1 Stock status 0,333 0,166667 96 16,00 1.1.2 Reference points 0,333 0,166667 80 13,33 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 1.1.4 Genetic outcome 0,333 0,166667 80 13,33 Management 0,5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,167 0,083333 85 7,08 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,167 0,083333 80 6,67 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,167 0,083333 80 6,67 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,167 0,083333 80 6,67 1.2.5 Genetic management 0,167 0,083333 85 7,08 1.2.6 Genetic information 0,167 0,083333 90 7,50 Two 1Retained 0,2 2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.1.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.1.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 Bycatch 0,2 2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.2.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 2.2.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 ETP species 0,2 2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.3.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 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 85 5,67 2.4.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.1 M Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.5.2 M Management 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 2.5.3 M Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 Three 1 Governance 0,5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 3.1.3 Longresponsibilities term objectives 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 0,25 0,125 90 11,25 Fishery specific 0,5 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0,2 0,1 100 10,00 3.2.4 Research plan 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 3.2.5 Management performance 0,2 0,1 90 9,00 evaluation

Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 84,3 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 88 ,0 Principle 3 – Management System 89 ,3

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 69 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

UC08.- Venerupis Corrugata collected on foot with hand devices

Principle Wt Component Wt PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight in Contribution to (L1) (L2) (L3) Principle Score Principle Score Either Either One 1Outcome 0,5 1.1.1 Stock status 0,333 0,166667 96 16,00 1.1.2 Reference points 0,333 0,166667 80 13,33 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding 1.1.4 Genetic outcome 0,333 0,166667 80 13,33 Management 0,5 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,167 0,083333 85 7,08 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,167 0,083333 80 6,67 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,167 0,083333 80 6,67 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,167 0,083333 80 6,67 1.2.5 Genetic management 0,167 0,083333 85 7,08 1.2.6 Genetic information 0,167 0,083333 90 7,50 Two 1Retained 0,2 2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.1.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.1.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 Bycatch 0,2 2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 species 2.2.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 2.2.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 ETP species 0,2 2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.3.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.3.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 Habitats 0,2 2.4.1 Outcome 0,333 0,0667 100 6,67 2.4.2 Management 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 2.4.3 Information 0,333 0,0667 85 5,67 Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.1 M Outcome 0,333 0,0667 80 5,33 2.5.2 MManagement 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 2.5.3 M Information 0,333 0,0667 75 5,00 Three 1 Governance 0,5 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 and policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0,25 0,125 100 12,50 3.1.3 Longresponsibilities term objectives 0,25 0,125 80 10,00 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 0,25 0,125 90 11,25 Fishery specific 0,5 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 management 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 system 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0,2 0,1 100 10,00 3.2.4 Research plan 0,2 0,1 80 8,00 3.2.5 Management performance 0,2 0,1 90 9,00 evaluation

Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 84, 3 Princip le 2 – Ecosystem 89,3 Principle 3 – Management System 89,3

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 70 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

6.2 Summary of Conditions

Related to Condition Performance previously raised Condition number Indicator condition? (Y/N/N/A)

By the second surveillance audit, t he Unit of Certification must have put in place a sampling programme to collect data on: i) bycatch from bullrakes (used by harvesters on foot on the 2.2.3 intertidal zone and by harvesters fishing on 1 board); ii) enhancement activities, namely on & N removal of predators and on accidental species 2.5.3. M collected during the removal of dead seaweed; and iii) amount of dead seaweed removed. Yearly reports must be produced in the following years.

Related to Condition Performance previously raised Condition number Indicator condition? (Y/N/N/A)

As soon as the fishery is certified, the Unit of Certification must stop the sowing of manila clam seed (either from natural beds or from 2 2.5.2. M N hactheries) because this practice promotes the population of this exotic species, fostering the impacts on the ecosystem induced by it.

6.2.1 Recommendations Related to Recomendation Performance previously raised Recomendation number Indicator recomendation? (Y/N/N/A)

It is of utmost importance to understand if the Venerupis corrugata seed produced in hatchery does not have an effect on the genetic structure of wild populations. 1 1.1.4. N Therefore, it is highly recommended to study the genetic diversity of both broodstock used and seed produced in order to understand if the genetic diversity is similar to wild stocks.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 71 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

6.3 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement

The fishery assessed has achieved a score above 80 against each of the MSC Principles. Following this decision by the assessment team, and review by stakeholders and peer-reviewers, the determination will be presented to Bureau Veritas Certification's decision making entity that the Clams and cockles fisheries from Ria de Arousa has passed its assessment and should be certified.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 72 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

References Abella, E., Martinez, M., Sebe, M., Alcalde, A., Mosquera, P., Parada, J., 2001. Experiments on the culture of the clam ( Venerupis pullastra ): Nursery and growth in Ria de Arousa, Galicia, Spain. In: H.F. Barber & M.I. Lopez.(eds.), Actas del VII Congreso Nacional de Acuicultura, pp. 118122. Dirección General de Universidades e Investigacion Consejeria de Educación Cultura y Deportes Gobierno de Canarias: Instituto Canario de Ciencias Marinas (CCM), Spain. Abelló, P., 1989. Reproduction and moulting in Liocarcinus depurator (Linnaeus, 1758) (Brachyura: Portunidae) in the Northwestern Mediterranean sea. Scientia Marina, 53: 127 134. Abelló, P., 1986. Anàlisi de les poblacions de crustacis decàpodes demersals al litoral catalá: aspectes biològics del braquiür Liocarcinus depurator . PhD Thesis, Universitat de Barcelona. Ackerman, J.D., Loewen, M.R., Hamblin, P.F., 2001. Benthicpelagic coupling over a zebra reef in western lake Erie. Limnology and Oceanography 46: 892–904 Aguilar, R., Torriente, A., García, S., 2009. Propuesta de áreas marinas de importancia ecológica. Zona galaicocantábrica. OCEANA, pp. 248. Allendorf, F.W., Leary, R.F., Spruell, P., Wenburg, J.K., 2001. The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16 (11): 613122. AlvarezSalgado, X.A., Rosón, G., Pérez, F.F., Figueiras, F.G., Pazos, Y., 1996. Nitrogen cycling in an estuarine upwelling system, the Ría de Arousa (NW, Spain). I. Shorttime scale patterns of hydrodynamic and biogeochemical circulation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 135: 259273. Andre, C., Lindegarth, M., 1995. Fertilization efficiency and gamete viability of a sessile, free spawning bivalve, Cerastoderma edule . Ophelia 43: 215227 Arcos, J.M., Bécares, J., Rodríguez, B., Ruiz, A., 2009. Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves marinas en España. LIFE04NAT/ES/000049Sociedad Española de Ornitología (SEO/BirdLife). Madrid, pp. 380. Arnaiz, R, de Coo, A., 1977. Artes de marisqueo usadas en la ria de Arousa. Plan de Explotacion Marisquera de Galicia. Santiago, Galicia, Espana. 102 pp. ArnaudHaond, S., Vonau, V., Bonhomme, F., Boudry, P., Blanc, F., Prou, J., Seaman, T., Goyard, E., 2004. Spatiotemporal variation in the genetic composition of wild populations of oyster ( Pinctada margaritifera cumingii ) in following 10 years of juvenile translocation. Mol. Ecol. 13: 2001–2007. Auby, I., 1993. Evolution of the biologic richness in the Arcachon basin. Technical Report, Laboratory of Biologic Oceanography, Ifremer, p. 222. Bacher, C., Goulletquer, P., 1989. Comparaison des relations trophiques de Venerupis philippinarum en milieux estuarien et océanique à partir d'un modèle de croissance. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46, 1160–1170. Banha, M.L.M.G., 1984. Aspectos da biologia (crescimento e reprodução) de Venerupis decussata na Ria Formosa. Relatório de Estágio, Sciences University of Lisbon. Bartley, D.M., Kent, D.B., Drawbridge, M.A., 1995. Conservation of genetic diversity in a white seabass hatchery enhancement programme in southern . Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 15: 249–258. Bartoli, M., Nizzoli, D., Viaroli, P., Turolla, E., Castaldelli, G., Fano, E.A., Rossi, R., 2001. Impact of Tapes philippinarum farming on nutrient dynamics and benthic respiration in the Sacca di Goro. Hydrobiologia 455: 203–212.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 73 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Beal, BF, Kraus, M.G., 2002. Interactive effects of initial size, stocking density, and type of predator deterrent netting on survival and growth of cultured juveniles of the softshell clam, Mya arenaria L., in eastern Maine. Aquaculture , 208: 81111. BendellYoung, L., 2006. Contrasting the community structure and select geochemical characteristics of three intertidal regions in relation to shellfish farming. Environmental Conservation 33, 21–27. BendellYoung, L.I. , Ydenberg, R.C., 2001. Ecological consequences of the shellfishery: a case study on the west coast os Canada, B. C. In: Waters in Peril. Coeditors P. Gallaugherand L.I. BendellYoung. Kluwer Academic Publishing, New York. Beninger, P.G., Lucas, A., 1984. Seasonal variations in condition, reproductive activity, and gross biochemical composition of two species of adult clam reared in a common habitat – Tapes descussatus L. (Jeffreys) and Tapes philippinarum (Adams and Reeve). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 79(1): 1937. Bert, T.M., Arnold, W.S., 1995. An empirical test of predictions of two competing models for the maintenance and fate of hybrid zones: both models are supported in hardclam hybrid zone. Evolution 49, 276–289. Beukema, J.J, Dekker, R., Philippart, C.J.M., 2010. Longterm variability in bivalve recruitment, mortality, and growth and their contribution to fluctuations in food stocks of shellfisheating birds. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 414: 117–130. Bierne, N., Borsa, P., Daguin, C., Jollivet, D., Viard, F., Bonhomme, F., David, P., 2003. Introgression patterns in the mosaic hybrid zone between Mytilus edulis and Mytilus galloprovincialis . Mol. Ecol. 12: 447–461. Blanton JO, Atkinson LP, Fernandez de Castillejo F, Lavin Montero A, 1984. Coastal upwelling on the Rias Bajas Galicia, Northwest Spain 1: hydrographic studies. Papports et proces verbaux des Reunions CIEM 183: 7990. Borsa, P., Millet, B., 1992. Recruitment of the clam Venerupis decussata in the Lagoon of Thau, mediterranean. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 35: 289300. Bouma, T.J., Olenin, S., Reise, K. et al (2009) Ecosystem engineering and biodiversity in coastal sediments: posing hypothesis. Helgol Mar Res 63:95–106 Bourne, N., 1982. Distribution, reproduction and growth of the Manila clam, Tapes philippinarum , (Adams and Reeves) in British Columbia. J. Shellfish Res. 2 (1): 47–54. Breber, P., 1980. Annual gonadal cycle in the carpetshell clam Venerupis decussata in Venice Lagoon, Italy. Proc. Nat. Shellfish. Assoc. 70: 3135. Breber, P., 1985. Ongrowing of the carpetshell clam ( Tapes decussata (L.)): two years’ experience in Venice Lagoon. Aquaculture 44, 51–56. Breber, P., 2002. Introduction and acclimatisation of the Pacific carpet clam Tapes philippinarum , to Italian waters. In: Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species in Europe. Distribution, impacts and management. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp: 120126. Breithaupt, H., 2003. Aliens on the shores. Biodiversity and national economies are being threatened by the invasion of nonnative species . EMBO reports , 4 (6): 547550. CaillMilly, N., De Casamajor, M.N., Lissardy, M., Sanchez, F., Morandeau, G., 2003. Évaluation du stock de palourdes du bassin d’Arcachon – Campagne 2003. DRVRH/Aquitaine Technical Report. Ifremer, p. 64. Caldow, R.W.G., McGrorty, S., West, A.D., Durell, S.E.A. leV dit, Stillman, R.A., Anderson, S., 2005. Macroinvertebrate fauna in the intertidal . In: Humphreys J, May V (eds). The ecology of poole harbour. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 91–108.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 74 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Caldow, R.W.G., Stillman, R.A., Durell, S.E.A.V., West, A.D., McGrorty, S., GossCustard, J.D., Wood, P.L., Humphreys, J., 2007. Benefits to shorebirds from invasion of a nonnative shellfish. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274:14491455. Callier, M.D., McKindsey, C.W., Desrosiers, G., 2007. Multiscale spatial variations in benthic sediment geochemistry and macrofaunal communities under a suspended mussel culture. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. , 348: 103115. Callier, M.D., Richard, M., McKindsey, C.W., Archambault, P., Desrosiers, G., 2009. Responses of benthic macrofauna and biogeochemical fluxes to various levels of mussel biodeposition: An in situ ‘‘benthocosm” experiment. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 58: 1544 1553. Cannas, A., 2010. Dinamica do popolazione di Venerupis decussata (L.) e insediamento di Venerupis philippinarum (Adams & Reeve) in Sardegna (Italia). Dottorato di ricerca, Biologia e biochimica dell´huomo e dell´ambiente, Universitá degli Studi di Cagliari, 145 pp. Cardoso, J.F.M.F., Witte, J.I.J., Van der Veer, H.W., 2009. Differential reproductive strategies of two bivalves in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 84, 3744. CerviñoOtero, A., 2011. Ciclo reproductivo, cultivo en criadero y en el medio natural de la almeja babosa Venerupis pullastra (Montagu, 1803). PhD Thesis, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, pp. 288. Cesari, P., Pellizzato, M., 1985. Molluschi pervenuti in laguna di Venezia per apporti volontari o casuali. Acclimazione di Saccostrea commercialis (Iredale & Roghely, 1933) e di Tapes philippinarum (Adams & Reeve, 1850). Boll. Malacologico 21: 237–274. Chew, K.K., 1989. Manila clam biology and fishery development in western North America. In: Manzi, J.J., Castagna, M. (Eds.), Clam Mariculture in North America. Elsevier, Amsterdam,pp. 243–261. Chiesa, S., Marzano, F.N., Minervini, G., De Lucrezia, D., Baccarani, G., Bordignon, G., Poli, I., Ravagnan, G., Argese, E., 2011. The invasive Manila clam Venerupis philippinarum (Adams and Reeve, 1850) in Northern Adriatic Sea: Population genetics assessed by an integrated molecular approach. Fisheries Research 110: 259– 267 Cho, S.M., Jeong, W.G., 2007. Ecological study of shortnecked clam Venerupis philippinarum from the Jindu Coast of Hansan Island, Korea. Korean J Malacol, 23 (1): 2530. Chryssanthakopoulou, V., Kaspiris, P., 2005. Reproductive cycle of the carpet shell clam Venerupis decussata (Linnaeus 1758) in Araxos lagoon (NW peloponnisos, Greece) and in Evinos estuary (South Aitoloakarnania, Greece). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 14 (11): 9991005. Cigarria, J., Fernandez, J.M., 2000. Management of Manila clam beds. I. Influence of seed size, type of substratum and protection on initial mortality. Aquaculture , 182: 173182. Coo, A. de 2010. Importancia dos depredadores nos bivalvos comerciais. Sistemas de prevención e protección. Jornadas sobre criaderos, semilleros y cultivo de almejas: 139142. Cottiglia, M., Tagliasacchi, M.L.M., 1988. Esperienze di allevamento di Tapes philippinarum in Sardegna. Quaderni Ist. Idrobiol. Acquacolt. Brunelli: 3–26. Dang, C., de Montaudouin, X., Gam, M., Paroissin, C., Bru, N., CaillMilly, N. 2010. The Manila clam population in Arachon Bay (SW France): Can it be kept sustainable? J. Sea Res., 63: 108118. Davenport, J., Smith, R., Packer, M., 2000. Mussels Mytilus edulis : significant consumers and destroyers of mesozooplankton. Marine EcologyProgress Series 198, 131–137. De Castro, M., GomezGesteira, M., Alvarez, I., Lorenzo, M., Cabanas, J.M., Prego, R., Crespo, A.J., 2008. Characterization of fallwinter upwelling recurrence along the Galician

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 75 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

western coast (NW Spain) from 2000 to 2005: Dependence on atmospheric forcing. Journal of Marine Systems 72: 145158 De Coo, A. et al. , 2012. Estudo de técnicas de prevención e protección das principais especies de depredadores dos recursos de moluscos bivalvos de bancos naturais e zonas de cultivo no litoral e rías galegas. Memoria de acción de investigación, 20072010, Centro de Investigacións Mariñas – Cima, pp. 72. De Grave, S., Moore, S.J., Burnell, G., 1998. Changes in benthic macrofauna associated with intertidal oyster, Crassostrea gigas culture (Thunberg). Journal of Shellfish Research 17, 1137–1142. Delgado, M., PerezCamacho, A., 2002. Hermaphroditism in Venerupis deeussatus (L.) (Bivalvia) from the Galician coast (Spain). Scientia Marina 66: 183185. Delgado, M., PérezCamacho, A., 2007. Comparative study of gonadal development of Venerupis philippinarum (Adams and Reeve) and Venerupis decussata (L.) (Mollusca: Bivalvia): Influence of temperature. Scientia Marina 71(3): 471484. Devauchelle, N., 1990. Sexual development and maturity of Tapes philippinarum . In: E.S.A.V. (Ed.), Tapes philippinarum, Biologia e sperimentazione. E.S.A.V. Treviso, pp. 47–62. Dorges, J., 1992. Zur populations dynamic von Cerastoderama edule (L.) nach dem Eiswinter 1978/79 am Beispiel zweier Stationen der Jadewatten (Nordsee) in der Zeiy von 19791988. Senckenbergiana Marit. 22 (1/2): 2128. Drummond, L., Mulcahy, M., Culloty, S., 2006. The reproductive biology of the Manila clam, Venerupis philippinarum , from the NorthWest of Ireland. Aquaculture 254: 326–340. Ducrotoy, J.P., Rybarczyk, H., Souprayen, J., Bachelet, G., Beukema, J.J., Desprez, M., Dorjes, J., Essink, K., Guillou, J., Michaelis, H., Sylvand, B., Wilson, J.G., Elkaim, B., Ibanez, F., 1991. A comparison of the population dynamics of the cockle ( Cerastoderma edule , L.) in NorthWestern Europe. In: Elliott, M., Ducrotoy, J.P. (Eds.), Estuaries and : Spatial and Temporal Intercomparisons. Olsen & Olsen, Fredensborg, pp. 173–184. Dumbauld, B.R., Ruesink, J.L., Rumrill, S.S., 2009. The ecological role of bivalve shellfish aquaculture in the estuarine environment: A review with application to oyster and clam culture in West Coast (USA) estuaries. Aquaculture , 290: 196223. Edmands, S., Deimler, J.K., 2004. Local adaptation, intrinsic coadaptation and the effects of environmental stress on interpopulation hybrids in the copepod Tigriopus californicus . J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 303: 183–196. Eleftheriou, A., Robertson, R.,1992. The effect of experimental scallop dredging on the fauna and physical environment of shallow sandy community. Neth. J. Sea Res., 30: 289299. Eversole, A.G., 1989. Gametogenesis and spawning in North American clam populations: implications for culture. In: Manzi, J.J., Castagna, M. (Eds.), Clam Mariculture in North America. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 75–109. Falcão , M., Gaspar, M.B., Caetano, M., Santos, M.N., Vale, C., 2003. Shortterm environmental impact of clam dredging in coastal waters (south of Portugal): chemical disturbance and subsequent recovery of seabed. Marine Environmental Research, 56 649– 664. Fanning, K.A., Carter, K.L., Betzer, P.R., 1982. Sediment resuspension by coastal waters: a potential mechanism for nutrient recycling on the ’s margins. DeepSea Research, 8A, 953–965. Fernández de Castillejo, F., Blanton, J., 1982. Medidas de corrientes, temperaturas y salinidades en la Ría de Arousa. Documento interno, Instituto Español de Oceanografía: 48.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 76 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Fernández de Castillejo, F., Lavin, A., 1982. Contribución al estudio del flujo de agua entrante y saliente en la Ría de Arousa. Boletín del Instituto Español de Oceanografía 7(2): 163180. Fernández, L., GonzálezGurriarána, Freire J., 1991. Population Biology of Liocarcinus depurator (Brachyura: Portunidae) in mussel raft culture areas in the Ría de Arousa (Galicia, Nw Spain). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the , 71 (2): 375390. Ferns, P.N., Rostron, D.M., Siman, S.H.Y., 2000. Effects of mechanical cockle harvesting on intertidal communities. J. Appl. Ecol., 37: 464474. Figueiras, F.G., Labarta, U., Fernández Reiriz, M.J., 2002. Coastal upwelling, primary production and mussel growth in the Rías Baixas of Galicia. Hydrobiologia 484: 121131 Figueras, A., 1957. Moluscos de las playas de la Ría de Vigo: II. Crecimiento y reproducción. Investigaciones Pesqueras, 7: 49–97. Fismare, 2008. Estudio cartográfico de la superficie marisquera de la Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ría de Arousa 15 Fismare. Innovación para la Sostenibilidad Flassch, J.P., Leborgne, Y., 1992. Introduction in Europe, from 1972 to 1980, of the Japanese manila clam ( Tapes philippinarum ) and effects on aquaculture production and natural settlement. In: ICES (Ed.), ICES Mar. Sci., vol. 194. ICES, Halifax, pp. 92–96. FlyeSainteMarie, J., Jean, F., Paillard, C., Ford, S., Powell, E., Hofmann, E., Klinck, J., 2007. Ecophysiological dynamic model of individual growth of Venerupis philippinarum . Aquaculture 266 (1–4): 130–143. Fraga F, 1981. Upwelling on the Galician coast, Northwest Spain. In: Richards, F.A. (Ed.), Coastal Upwelling. American Geophysical Union, Washington: 176182. Freire, J., 1996. Feeding ecology of Liocarcinus depurator (Decapoda: Portunidae) in the Ría de Arousa (Galicia, northwest Spain): effects of habitat, season and life history. Marine Biology, 126: 297311. Gaffney, P.M., 2006. The role of genetics in shellfish restoration. Aquat Living Resour 19: 277–282. Garaulet, L., Chainho, P., Costa, J.L., Silva, G., Azeda, A.C., Medeiros, J.P., Gaspar, M., Costa, M.J., Caçador, I., 2012. Comparative analysis of the population structure of the Manila clam Venerupis philippinarum with its native relative Venerupis decussata and the macrobenthic community in Seixal Bay (Portugal). 7th European Conference on Biological Invasions NEOBIOTA "Halting Biological Invasions in Europe: from Data to Decisions", 1214 September 2012, Pontevedra, Spain. García Fernández, A., Cerviño Eiroa, A., De Coo, A., Iglesias, M.B., Dominguez , M., 2003. Tasa de crecimiento y mortalidad en el preengorde de la almeja fina, Venerupis decussata (Linné, 1758), la almeja babosa, Venerupis pullastra (Montagu, 1803) y la almeja japonesa, Venerupis philippinarum (Adams & Reeve, 1850), en batea en las rías bajas. Su relación con las densidades de cultivo y las operaciones de manejo. IX Congresso Nacional de Acuicultura, Libro de resumens:311313. García Martín, O., Espinosa, J., Fariña, P.A., Córdova, G.A.H., Moreira, I.M., Villar, R.C., 2007. Fijación de bases científicas para establecer la talla mínima de marisqueo en almejas, berberecho y coquina. Informe final, Santiago de Compostela, pp.69. Gaspar, M.B., Barracha, I., Carvalho, S., Vasconcelos, P., 2012. Clam fisheries worldwide: main species, harvesting methods and fishing impacts. In: Clam fisheries and aquaculture (Costa, F. ed.), Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 77 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Gaspar, M.B., Chícharo, L.M., 2007. Modifying dredges to reduce bycatch and impacts on the benthos. In: Bycatch reduction in the world’s fisheries (S. Kennelly, ed.), Springer: pp 95140. Gómez Gallego, J., 1971. Estudio de las condiciones oceanográficas en la ría de Arousa, en verano. Boletín del Instituto Español de Oceanografía 147: 139. Gómez Gallego, J., 1975. Estudio de las condiciones oceanográficas en la Ría de Arousa, en invierno. Boletín del Instituto Español de Oceanografía 185: 153. González, E,P., Mera, F.L., Peralta, J.S., 2009. Caracterización y análisis de la hidrodinámica y el transporte de sedimentos en ABanqueiro (Ría de Arousa). Informe final, FISMARE, pp.75. González, R., Pérez Camacho, A., 1984. El berberecho, Cerastoderma edule (L.), de Carril (Ría de Arousa). I: reproducción y estado de condición. Actas IV Simp. Ibér. Estud. Bentos Mar., 1: 209–222. Gosling, E., 2003. Bivalve Molluscs. Biology, Ecology and Culture. Fishing News Books, Oxford. GossCustard, J.D., 1985. Foraging behaviour of wading birds and the carrying capacity of estuaries. In Behavioural ecology: ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour (eds R. M. Sibly & R. H. Smith), pp. 169–188. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications. Goulletquer, P., Robert, R., Gilles, T., 1998. Manila clam Tapes philippinarum : sedimentclam interactions. Aquatic Living Resources 12, 45–56. Guillou, J., Bachelet, G., Desprez, M., Ducrotoy, J.P., Madani, I., Rybarczyk, H., Sauriau, P.G., Sylvand, B., Elkaim, B., Glemarec M., 1990. Les modalités de la reproduction de la coque ( Cerastoderma edule ) sur le littoral français de la Manche et de l'Atlantique. Aquatic Living ressource, 3: 2941. Guillou, J., Tartu, C., 1994. Postlarval and juvenile mortality in a population of the edible cockle Cerastoderma edule (L.) from Northern Brittany. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research , 33: 103111. Hall, S.J., Basford, D.J., Robertson, M.R., 1990. The impact of hydraulic dredging for razor clams sp. on an infauna community. Neth. J. Sea Res., 27: 119125. Hall, S.J., Harding, M.J.C., 1997. Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: The effects of mechanical harvesting of cockles on nontarget benthic infauna. J. Appl. Ecol., 34: 497–517. Hall, S.J., Robertson., M.R., Basford, D.J., Fryer, R., 1993. Pitdigging by the crab : a test for longterm, large scale effects on infauna community structure. J. Anim. Ecol., 62: 59–66. Hancock, D.A., 1973. The relationship between stock and recruitment in exploited invertebrates. Rapp. PV Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer., 164: 113131. Hancock, D.A., Franklin, A., 1972. Seasonal changes in the condition of the edible cockle Cardium edule (L.). Journal of Applied Ecology 9: 567–579. Hartstein, N.D., Rowden, A.A., 2004. Effect of biodeposits from mussel culture on macroinvertebrate assemblages at sites of different hydrodynamic regime. Marine Environmental Research 57, 339–357. Helm, M.M., Bourne, N., Lovatelli, A., 2004. Hatchery culture of bivalves. A practical manual. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 471. FAO, Rome. Hiddink, J.G., 2003. Effects of suctiondredging for cockles on nontarget fauna in the Wadden Sea. J. Sea Res., 50: 315323.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 78 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Holland, D.A., Chew, K.K., 1974. Reproductive cycle of the Manila clam ( Venerupis japonica ) from Hood Canal, Washington. Proceedings of the National Shellfisheries Association, vol. 64, pp. 53–58. Hulme, PE., 2003. Biological invasions: winning the science battles but losing the conservation war? Oryx 37:178–193. Humphreys, J., Caldow, R.W.G., McGrorty, E., West, A.D., Jensen, A.C., 2007. Population dynamics of naturalised Manila clams Venerupis philippinarum in British coastal waters. Mar Biol., 151: 2255–2270. Hurtado, N.S., PérezGarcía, C., Morán, P., Pasantes, J.J., 2011. Genetic and cytological evidence of hybridization between native Venerupis decussata and introduced Venerupis philippinarum (Mollusca, Bivalvia, Veneridae) in NW Spain. Aquaculture 311: 123–128 Hutchings, J.A., 1991. The threat of extinction to native populations experiencing spawning intrusions by cultured Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 98: 119–132. Huvet, A., Fabioux, C., McCombie, H., Lapegue, S., Boudry, P., 2004. Natural hybridization between genetically differentiated populations of Crassostrea gigas and C. angulata highlighted by sequence variation in flanking regions of a microsatellite locus. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 272, 141–152. Iglesias, M.L., Nunes, M.T., 1982. Variación anual de algunos parámetros físicoquímicos en la Ría de Arousa. Boletín del Instituto Español de Oceanografía 7(2): 181190. Jamieson, G.S., Chew, L., Gillespie, G., Robinson, A., BendellYoung, L., Heath, W., Bravender, B., Tompkins, A., Nishimura, D., and Doucette, P. 2001. Phase 0 Review of the Environmental Impacts of Intertidal Shellfish Aquaculture in Baynes Sound. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2001/125. 103 pp. J.I.P., Navarro , E., 1990. Shell growth of the cockle Cerastoderma edule in the mundaca estuary (north Spain). J. Mollus. Stud., 56 (2): 229238. Jensen, A., Humphreys, J., Caldow, R., Cesar, C., 2005. The Manila clam in Poole Harbour. In: Humphreys J, May V (eds) The ecology of Poole Harbour. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 163–173. Jensen, A.C., Humphreys, J., Caldow, R.W.G., Grisley, C., Dyrynda, P.E.J., 2004. Naturalization of the Manila clam ( Tapes philippinarum ), an alien species, and establishment of a clam fishery within Poole Harbour, Dorset. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 84, 1069–1073. Jensen, K.T., 1992. Dynamics and growth of the cockle, Cerastoderma edule , on an intertidal mudflat in the Danish Wadden Sea: effects of submersion time and density. Neth. J. Sea Res., 28: 335–345. Joaquim, S., Matias, D., Matias, A.M., Moura, P., Arnold, W.S., Chícharo, L., Gaspar, M.B., 2011. Reproductive activity and biochemical composition of the pullet carpet shell Venerupis corrugata (Gmelin, 1791) (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from Ria de Aveiro (northwestern coast of Portugal). Scientia Marina 75(2): 217226. Joaquim, S., Pereira, J., Leitão, A., Matias, D., Chaves, R., GuedesPinto, H., Chícharo, L., Gaspar, M., 2010. Genetic diversity of two Portuguese populations of the pullet carpet shell Venerupis senegalensis , based on RAPD markers: contribution to a sustainable restocking program. Helgol. Mar. Res. 64: 289–295 Johannessen, O.H., 1973. Population structure and individual growth of Venerupis pullastra (Montagu) (Lamellibranchia). Sarsia, 52: 97116. Jones, G.G., Sanford, C.L., Jones, B.L., 1993. Manila clamas: hatchery and nursery methods. Innovative Aquaculture Products Ltd., pp. 70.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 79 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Jurić, I., Bušelić, I., EzgetaBalić, D., Vrgoč, N., Peharda, M., 2012. Age, Growth and Condition Index of Venerupis decussata (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Eastern Adriatic Sea. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 12: 613618. Kaiser, M.J., Broad, G., Hall, S.J., 2001. Disturbance of intertidal softsediment benthic communities by cockle hand raking. J. Sea Res., 45: 119130. Kaiser, M.J., Burnell, G., Costello, M., 1998c. The environmental impact of bivalve mariculture: A review. Aquaculture '98 Book of Abstracts. pp. 8182. Kaiser, M.J., Edwards D.B., Armstrong P.J., Radford K., Lough, N.E.L., Flat, R.P., Jones, H.D., 1998a. Changes in megafauna benthic communities in different habitats after trawling disturbance. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 55: 353361. Kaiser, M.J., Edwards, D.B., Spencer, B.E., 1996. Infaunal community changes as a result of commercial clam cultivation and harvesting. Aquatic Living Resources, 9: 5763. Kaiser, M.J., Laing, I., Utting, .SD., Burnell, G.M., 1998b. Environmental impacts of bivalve mariculture. Journal of Shellfish Research, 17 (1): 5966. Kaiser, M.J., Spencer, B.E., 1995. Survival of bycatch from a beam trawl. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 126: 31–38. Kingston, P.F., 1974. Studies on the reproductive cycles of Cardium edule and C. glaucum . Mar. Biol. 28: 317–323. Kraan, C., Dekinga, A., Folmer, E.O., van der Veer, H.W., Piersma, T., 2008. Macrobenthic fauna on intertidal mudflats in the Dutch Wadden Sea: Species abundances, biomass and distributions in 2004 and 2006. NIOZReport 20072, pg. 40. Kraeuter, J.N., Castagna, M., 1985. The effects of seed size, shell bags, crab traps, and netting on the survival of the northern Mercenaria mercenaria (Linne). J. Shellfish Res. , 5: 6972. Kristensen, I., 1957. Differences in density and growth in a cockle population in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Arch. Neerl .Zool. 12: 351453. Krost, P., Bernhard, M., Werner, F., Hukriede, W., 1990. Otter trawl tracks in Kiel Bay (western Baltic) mapped by sidescan sonar. Meeresforsch, 32, 344–353. Landry, T., Skinner, M., Le Blanc, A., Bourque, D., McKindsey, C., Tremblay, R., Archambault, P., Comeau, L., Courtenay, S., Hartog, F., Ouellette, M., Sevigny, J.M., 2006. A Scientific Review of Bivalve Aquaculture: Interaction Between Wild and Cultured Species. A Scientific Review of the Potential Environmental Effects of Aquaculture in Aquatic Ecosystems. Volume V. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2450: p x + 138. Laruelle, F.J., Guillou, J., Paulet, Y.W., 1994. Reproductive pattern of the clams, Venerupis decussata and Venerupis philippinarum on intertidal flats in Brittany. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K., 74(2): 351366. Leary, R.F. et al. (1993) Conservation genetics of bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath River drainages. Conserv. Biol. 7, 856–865 Leavitt, D.F., Burt, W.P., 2000. Control of predators on cultured shellfish: Exclusion strategies. Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. NRAC Bulletin No. 00007. Lebour, M. V., 1938. Notes on the breeding of some lamellibranchs from Plymouthand their larvae. J. Mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 23 : 119145. Lehane, C., Davenport, J., 2002. Ingestion of mesozooplankton by three species of bivalve: Mytilus edulis, Cerastoderma edule and Aequipecten opercularis . Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 82, 615–619.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 80 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Leitão, F.M., Gaspar, M.B., 2007. Immediate effect of intertidal nonmechanised cockle harvesting on macrobenthic communities: a comparative study. Scientia Marina, 71 (4): 723733. Leppakoski, E., Gollasch, S., Olenin, S., 2002. Alien species in European waters. In: Leppa¨koski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S (eds) Invasive aquatic species of Europe. Distribution, impacts and management. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1–6 Libralato, S., Pranovi, F., Torricelli, P., Raicevich, S., Da Ponte, F., Pastres, R., Mainardi, D., 2004. Ecological stages of the Venice Lagoon analysed using landing time series data. Journal of Marine Systems 51: 331–344. Lindegarth, M., André, C., Jonsson, P.R., 1995. Analysis of the spatial variability in abundance and age structure of two infaunal bivalves, Cerastoderma edule and C. lamarcki , using hierarchical sampling programs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 116: 85–97. Macedo, M.C.C., M.I.C. Macedo, Borges, J.P., 1999. Conchas Marinhas de Portugal. Ed. Verbo, Lisboa. Machordom, A., GarciaMarin, J.L., Sanz, N., Almodovar, A., Pla, C., 1999. Allozyme diversity in brown trout ( Salmo trutta ) from central Spain: genetic consequences of restocking. Freshw. Biol. 41: 707–717. Maia, F., Sobral, M..P., Gaspar, M.B., 2006. Ciclo reprodutivo e primeira maturação de Solen marginatus e Venerupis pullastra na Ria de Aveiro. Bases científicas para a gestão destes recur¬sos. Relat. Cient. Téc. IPIMAR, 30: 135. Mann, R., Glomb, S.J., 1978. The effect of temperature on growth and ammonia excretion of the Manila clam, Tapes japonica . Estuar. Coast. Mar. Sci. 6, 335–339. Martinez, L.S., 2008. Plan de explotación para autorizacións: marisqueo a pé / flote. Martinez, L.S., 2009. Plan de explotación para autorizacións: marisqueo a pé / flote. Martinez, L.S., 2010. Plan de explotación para autorizacións: marisqueo a pé / flote. Martinez, L.S., 2011. Plan de explotación para autorizacións: marisqueo a pé / flote. Martinez, L.S., 2012. Plan de explotación para autorizacións: marisqueo a pé / flote. MartínezCastro, C., Vázquez, E., 2012. Reproductive cycle of the cockle Cerastoderma edule (Linnaeus 1758) in the Ría de Vigo (Galicia, northwest Spain). Journal of Shellfish Research, 31 (3): 757–767. MartínezPatiño et al., 2012. Optimización del cultivo intensivo de la almeja e identificación de marcadores genéticos para el seguimiento de las repoblaciones. JACUMAR, Junta nacional asesora de Cultivos Mariños, Planes Nacionales de Cultivos Mariños, Informe final, 198pp. Masaoka, T., Kobayashi, T., 2005. Natural hybridization between Pinctada fucata and Pinctada maculata inferred from internal transcribed spacer regions of nuclear ribosomal genes. Fish. Sci. 71, 829–836. Matias, D., 2012. Bases biológicas e ambientais para a optimização da produção de amêijoaboa Venerupis decussata (Linnaeus, 1758). PhD Thesis, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 178pp. Matias, D., Joaquim, S., Matias, A.M., Moura, P., Teixeira de Sousa, J., Sobral, P., Leitão, A. The reproductive cycle of the European clam Venerupis decussata (Linnaues, 1758) in two Portuguese populations: implications for management and aquaculture programs. Aquaculture (2012 submitted). Mayer, L.M., Schick, D.F., Findlay, R.H., Rice, D.L., 1991. Effects of commercial dragging on sedimentary organic matter. Marine Environmental Research, 31, 249–261. Mejuto, J., 1984a. Contribución al estudio de la din Mejuto, J. 1984a. Contribución al estudio de la dinámica de la población de berberecho, Cerastoderma edule (L.), en la Ría de Noia, Galicia. Cuad. Area Cien. Mar., 1: 453–467.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 81 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Mejuto, J., 1984b. Primeros datos sobre la dinámica de la población de Cerastoderma edule (L.) de la Ría do Pasaxe (NW de Galicia): estrategias de explotación. Actas IV Simp. Iber. Estud. Bentos Mar.,1: 83–102. Molares, J., Caamaño, A., Leal, M.C.B., Parada, J.M., 2001. Determinación dos parámetros da curva de crecemento, os coeficientes de mortalidade e a talla mínima comercial do berberecho ( Cerastoderma edule ) en Galicia. Consellería de Pesca e Asuntos Marítimos, CIMA, Memoria da actividade do ano 2001: 7071. Molares, J., Parada, J.M., NavarroPérez, E., Fernández, A., 2008. Variabilidad Interanual de las Ventas de los Principales Recursos Marisqueros de Galicia y su Relación con las Condiciones Ambientales. Revista Galega dos Recursos Mariños (Art. Inf. Tecn.) 2(1): 142. Molares, J., Freire, J. 2003. Development and perspectives for communitybased management of the goose barnacle ( Pollicipes pollicipes ) fisheries in Galicia (NW Spain). Fisheries Research 65: 485–492. Mooney, H.A., Cleland, E.E., 2001. The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:5446–5451. Moore, J., 1991. Studies on the impact of hydraulic cockle dredging on intertidal sediment flat communities. A report to the Nature Conservancy Council from the Field Studies. FSC/RC/4/91. Council Research Centre, Pembroke, Wales. Mora, J., 1980. Poblaciones bentónicas de la Ria Arousa. PhD Thesis, Santiago de Compostela, pp. 355. Morgan, C., 2002. Naturalisation of an introduced species, the Manila Clam, Tapes philippinarum , in Poole Harbour, UK. Special Publication Aquaculture Association of Canada, 6: 5355. Mortensen, S.H., 1993. A health survey of selected stocks of commercially exploited Norwegian bivalve molluscs. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 16(2): 149156. Muino, R., Fernandez, L., GonzalezGurriaran, E., Freire, J., Vilar, J.A., 1999. Size at maturity of Liocarcinus depurator (Brachyura: Portunidae): a reproductive and morphometric study. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 79: 295303. Munroe, D., McKinley, R.S., 2007. Commercial Manila clam ( Tapes philippinarum ) culture in British Columbia, Canada: the effects of predator netting on intertidal sediment characteristics. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. , 72: 319328. Mura, L., Cossu, P., Cannas, A., Scarpa, F., Sanna, D., Dedola, G.L., Floris, R., Lai, T., Cristo, B., CuriniGalletti, M., Fois, N., Casu, M., 2012. Genetic variability in the Sardinian population of the manila clam, Venerupis philippinarum . Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 41: 74–82. Nakamura, Y., Hagino, M., Hiwatari, T., Iijima, A., Kohata, K., Furota, T., 2002. Growth of the Manila clam Venerupis philippinarum in Sanbanse, the shallow coastal area in Tokyo Bay. Fisheries Science, 68: 1309–1316 Newell, R.C., Seiderer, L.J., Hitchcock, D.R., 1998. The impact of dredging works in coastal waters: a review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources on the seabed. Oceanography and Marine Biology: a Review, 36, 127–177. Newell, R.I.E., Bayne, B.L., 1980. Seasonal changes in the physiology, reproductive condition and carbohydrate content of the cockle Cardium (¼ Cerastoderma ) edule (Bivalvia: Cardiidae). Marine Biology 56: 11–19. Nie, Z.Q., 1991. The culture of marine bivalve mollusks in China. In: Menzel, W. (Ed.), Estuarine and Marine Bivalve Mollusk Culture. CRC Press, Boston, pp. 261–276. Niell F.X., 1978. Catálogo florístico y fenológico de las algas superiores y cianofíceas bentónicas de las Rías Bajas Gallegas. Invest. Pesq. Vol.42: 365400.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 82 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Nunes, T., Mariño, J., Iglesias, M.L., González, N., Campos, M.J., Cabanas, J.M., 1984 Condiciones ambientales, producción primaria y sucesión de especies fitoplanctónicas en la Ría de Arousa (NW de España), Cuadernos de Area de Ciencias Mariñas, Seminario de Estudos Galegos 1: 163172. O’Connor, W.A., Heasman, M.P., 1995. Spawning induction and fertilisation in the doughboy scallop Chlamys (Mimachlamys) asperrima . Aquaculture, 136: 117129. Ohba, S., 1959. Ecological studies in the natural population of a clam, Tapes japonica , with special reference to seasonal variations in the size and structure of the population and to individual growth. Biol. J. Okayama Univ. 5, 13–47. Ojea, J., Pazos, A.J., Martínez, D., Novoa, S., Sánchez, J.L., Abad, M., 2004. Seasonal variation in weight and biochemical composition of the tissues of Venerupis decussata in relation to the gametogenic cycle. Aquaculture 238:451468. Otto, L., 1975. Oceanography of the Ría de Arousa (N.W. Spain), Konoklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Institut. Mededelingen en Verhandelingen. 10296: 210. Pacheco, L., Vieira, A., Ravasco, J., 1989. Crescimento e reprodução de Venerupis decussata na Ria Formosa (Sul de Portugal). Bentos 6:129136. Parada, J.M., Miranda, M., Martínez, G., Carreira, P., Molares, J., 2011. Temperatura y salinidad en los bancos marisqueros de Placeres, Sarrido, Bohído y Lombos do Ulla entre 2006 y 2010. Rías de Pontevedra y Arousa. Galicia. Revista Galega dos Recursos Mariños (Datos): 2, 201 pp. Parada, J.M., Molares, J., SánchezMata, A., Martínez, G., Darriba, C., Mariño, J., 2007. Temperatura y salinidad en el banco marisquero de “Lombos do Ulla” (Ría de Arousa. Galicia) entre 2002 y 2006: Datos diarios. Revista Galega dos Recursos Mariños (Datos): 1, 226 pp. Peña, V., Bárbara, I., 2007. Los fondos de maërl en Galicia. (Maërl beds in Galicia.) Algas 37, Boletín Informativo de la Sociedad Española de Ficología (Newsletter of the Spanish Society for Phycology), pg. 18. Pereira, S.M., Arias, A., Méndez, J., Insua, A., Freire, R., 2010. Isolation of twelve microsatellite markers in the pullet carpet shell Venerupis pullastra (Bivalvia: Veneridae). Conservation Genet. Resour., 2:201–203 PérezCamacho, A., 1980. Biología de Venerupis pullastra (Montagu, 1803) y Venerupis decussata (Linné, 1767) (Mollusca: Bivalvia) con especial referencia a factores determinantes de la producción. Bol. Inst. Esp. Oceanogr. 281: 353358. PérezCamacho, A., Román, G., 1984. Crecimiento, reproducción, mortalidad y producción del berberecho Cerastoderma edule (L.), en la Ría de Arousa. Cuad. Area Cien. Mar., 1: 499– 507. Piersma, T., Koolhaas, A., Dekinga, A., Beukema,J., Dekker, R., Essink, K., 2001. Longterm indirect effects of mechanical cockledredging on intertidal bivalve stocks in the Wadden Sea. J. Appl. Ecol., 38 (suppl. 5): 97690. Ponurovskii, S.K., 2008. Population structure and growth of the Japanese littleneck clam Venerupis philippinarum in Amursky Bay, Sea of Japan. Russ. J. Mar. Biol., 5(34): 329332. Ponurovsky, S.K., Yakovlev, Y.M., 1992. The reproductive biology of the Japanese littleneck, Tapes philippinarum (Adams & Reeve, 1850) (Bivalvia: Veneridae). J. Shellfish Res. 11 (2): 265–277. Poppe, G.T., Goto, Y., 1993. European seashells. Vol. II (Scaphopoda, Bivalvia, Cephalopoda). Verlag Christa Hemmen, .

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 83 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Pranovi F., Franceschini G., Casale, M., Zucchetta M., Giovanardi O. and Torricelli P., 2006. An ecological imbalance induced by a nonnative species: the Manila clam in the Venice Lagoon. Biol. Inv. , 8: 595609. Qi, Z.Y., 1998. Commercially Important Mollusks in China. Beijing, China: China Agricultural Press, 325pp. Quayle, D.B., 1952. The rate of growth of Venerupis pullastra (Montagu) at Millport, Scotland. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. B, 64, 384406. Queiro´s, A.M., Hiddink, J.G., Johnson, G., Cabral, H.N., Kaiser, M.J., 2011. Context dependence of marine ecosystem engineer invasion impacts on benthic ecosystem functioning. Biol Invasions, 13: 1059–1075 Ramón, M., 2003. Population dynamics and secondary production of the cockle Cerastoderma edule (L.) in a backbarrier tidal flat of theWadden Sea. Sci. Mar., 67: 429–443. Rees, E.I.S., 1996. Environmental effects of mechanized cockle fisheries: a review of research data. Report to the Marine Environmental Protection Division, MAFF. Scholl of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UK. Reisenbichler, R.R., Rubin, S.P., 1999. Genetic changes from artificial propagation of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 56: 459–466. Rey Salgado, J., 1993: Relación morfosedimentaria entre la plataforma continental de Galicia y las Rías Bajas y su evolución durante el Cuaternario. Publicaciones Especiales. Instituto Español de Oceanografía, 17. 233 p. Rhoads, D. C., Boyer, L. F., 1982. The effects of marine benthos on physical properties of sediments: a successional perspective. In McCall, P. L. & J. S. Tevesz (eds), Animal– sediment relations: the biogenic alterationof sediments. Plenum Press, New York, 3–52. Rhymer, J. M., Simberloff, D., 1996. Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1996. 27:83–109 Ricciardi, A., 2004. Assessing species invasions as a cause of extinction. Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 19 (12): 619. Rice, J.C., Connolly, P.L., 2007. Fisheries management strategies: an introduction by the Conveners. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64:577579. Riemann, B., Hoffmann, E., 1991. Ecological consequences of dredging and bottom trawling in the Limfjord, Denmark. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 69, 171–178. Rinaldi, E., 1991. Le conchiglie della costa romagnola. Ed. Essegi Ravenna. Robert, R., Trut, G., Laborde, J.L, 1993. Growth, reproduction and gross biochemical composition of the Manila clam Venerupis philippinarum in the Bay of Arcachon, France. Marine Biology, 116: 291299 Robert, R., Trut, G., Labourde, J.L., 1993. Growth, reproduction and gross biochemical composition of the Manila clam Venerupis philippinarum in the Bay of Arcachon, France. Mar. Biol. 116: 291–299. Robinson, T.J., Morris, D.J., 1991. Interspecific hybridization in the Bovidae: Sterility of Alcelaphus buselaphus x Damaliscus dorcas F1 progeny. Biol. Conserv. 58:345–56 RodriguesCarballo, S., QuintanaCarballo, R., Ferreiro, F.J.,Velasco Selas, J., López, P., 1992. Evaluación del ciclo reproductor de Venerupis philippinarum y Tapes decussata en la Ría de MurosNoya. Alimentaria, 236: 3744. Rodríguez, S., Quintana, R., Lamas, L., Ayensa, G., Velasco, F.J., Pascual, C., 1993. Etude comparative du cycle gamétogénique et composition biochímique de Tapes decussata et Venerupis philippinarum dans la Ría de Muros y Noya. In: G. Bernabe, P. Kestemont (Eds.),

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 84 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Bordeaux Aquaculture 92. Production, Environment and Quality. Special Publication European Aquaculture Society, pp. 503 511, Bordeaux. Rodríguez, S., Quintana, R., Lamas, L., Ayensa, G., Velasco, F.J., Pascual, C., 1993. Etúde comparative du cycle gamétogénique et composition biochímique de Tapes decussata et Venerupis philippinarum dans la Ría de Muros y Noya. In: Bernabe G., Kestemont P. (eds.) Bordeaux Aquaculture 92. Production, Environment and Quality. Special 762 Publication European Aquaculture Society, Bordeaux, pp 503 511. RodríguezMoscoso, E., Pazo, J.P., Garcia, A., FernándezCortes, F., 1992. Reproductive cycle of Manila clam, Venerupis philippinarum (Adams and Reeve, 1850) in Ria of Vigo (NW Spain). Sci. Mar., 56(1): 6167. Rosón, G., Pérez, F.F., ÁlvarezSalgado, X.A., Figueiras, F.G., 1995. Variation of both thermohaline and chemical properties in an estuarine upwelling ecosystem: Ria de Arousa. I. Time evolution. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 41: 195213. Rosón, G., Pérez, F.F., ÁlvarezSalgado, X.A., Ríos, A.F., 1991. Flujos de los aportes de agua continental a la Ría de Arousa. Scientia Marina 55, 583–589. Rossi, R., 2000. Gestione produttiva della Sacca di Goro (Delta del Po): analisi dei parametri ambientali, biologici e socioeconomici per la valutazione del regime concessorio. Ministero per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali, quinto piano triennale. 28 pp. Rostron, D., 1993. The effects of tractor towed cockle dredging on the invertebrate fauna of LLanrhidian Sands, Burry inlet. Subsea survey. Report Countryside Council for Wales. Rostron, D., 1995. The effects of mechanised cockle harvesting on the invertebrate fauna of LLanrhidian Sands. Burry Inlet and Loughor Estuary Symposium, 111117. Royo, A., 1985. Estudios sobre el cultivo de Venerupis desussatus (Linne, 1758) Mollusca, Bivalvia, en la zona intermareal de la Provincia de Huelva. PhD Thesis, Sevilla University, pp.298. Rozhnov, V.V., 1993. Extinction of the European mink: ecological catastrophe or a natural process? Lutreola 1, 10–16 Ryman, N., Laikre, L., 1991. Effects of supportive breeding on the genetically effective population size. Conserv. Biol. 5: 325–329. Sarasquete, M.C., Gimeno, S., Gonzalez de Canales, M.L., 1990. Cycle reproducteur de la palourde Venerupis philippinarum (Adams & Reeve, 1850) de la cote sud ouest atlantique (Espagne). Rev. Int. Oceanogr. Med. LXXXXVII, 90–99. Sauriau, P.G., 1992. Les mollusques benthiques du basin de MarennesOléron : estimation et cartographie des stocks non cultivés, compétition spatiale et trophique, dynamique de population de Cerastoderma edule (L.). Univ. Bretagne Occidentale., Brest., 292p. Sauriau, P.G., Kang, C.K., 2000. Stable isotope evidence of benthic microalgaebased growth and secondary production in the suspension feeder Cerastoderma edule (Mollusca, Bivalvia) in the MarennesOléron Bay. Hydrobiologia 440: 317–329 Seed, R., Brown, R.A., 1977. A comparison of the reproductive cycles of Modiolus modiolus (L.), Cerastoderma (¼ Cardium ) edule (L.), and Mytilus edulis L. in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland. Oecologia 30: 173–188. Sgro, L., Mistri, M., Widdows, J., 2005. Impact of the infaunal manila clam, Venerupis philippinarum , on sediment stability. Hydrobiologia 550:175–182 Shafee, M.S., Daoudi, M., 1991. Gametogenesis and spawning in the carpetshell clam, Venerupis decussata (L.) (Mollusca: Bivalvia), from the Atlantic coast of Morocco. Aquac. Res. 22: 203216. Shikano, T., Taniguchi, N., 2003. DNA markers for estimation of inbreeding depression and heterosis in the guppy Poecilia reticulata . Aquacult. Res. 34: 905–911.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 85 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

ShraderFrechette, K.S., McCoy, E.D., 1993. Method in Ecology. Strategies for Conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Simenstad, C.A., Fresh, K.L., 1995. Influence of intertidal aquaculture on benthic communities in Pacific northwest estuaries: scales of disturbance. Estuaries 18: 4370. Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa, 2010, 2011, 2012. Plan de explotación para autorizacións: marisqueo a pé / flote (Plan de manexo). Sorokin, I.I., Giovanardi, O., 1995. Trophic characteristics of the Manila clam ( Venerupis philippinarum Adams & Reeve,1850). ICES Journal of Marine Science 52: 835–862. Sorokin, I.I., Giovanardi, O., Pranovi, F., Sorokin, P.I., 1999. Need for restricting bivalve culture in the southern basin of the Lagoon of Venice. Hydrobiologia 400:141–148 Spencer, B.E., 1996. Clam cultivation: localised environmental effects. Results of an experiment in the River Exe, Devon (19911995). Report Prepared for Directorate of Fisheries Research, Fisheries Laboratory, Conwy. Spencer, B.E., Edwards, D.B., Millican, P.F., 1991. Cultivation of Manila clam. Lab. Leafl., MAFF Direct. Fish. Res., Lowestoft, 29 pp. Spencer, B.E., Kaiser, M.J., Edwards, D.B., 1998. Intertidal clam harvesting: benthic community change and recovery. Aquac. Res., 29(suppl. 6): 429437. Streftaris, N., Zenetos, A., 2006. Alien Marine Species in the Mediterranean the 100 ‘Worst Invasives’ and their Impact. Med. Mar. Sci., 7(1): 87118. Summerson, H.C., Peterson, C.H., 1984 Role of predation in organizing benthic communities of a temperatezone seagrass bed. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 15: 63–77. Tallmark, B., 1980. Population Dynamics of Nassarius reticulatus (, Prosobranchia) in Gullmar Fjord, Sweden. Marine Ecology, 3: 5162. Tebble, N., 1966. British bivalve seashells. A Handbook for Identification. British Museum, Edinburgh, pg. 212. Tenore, K.R., Boyer, L.F., Cal, R.M., Corral, J., GarcíaFernandez, C., González, N., Gonzalez Gurriaran, E., Hanson, R.B., Iglesias, J., Krom, M., LópezJamar, E., McClain, J., Pamatmat, M.M., Pérez, A., Rhoads, D.C., de Santiago, G., Tietjen, J., Westrich, J., Windom, H.L., 1982. Coastal upwelling in the Rías Bajas, NW Spain: Contrasting the benthic regimes of the Rías de Arousa and de Muros." Journal of Marine Research 40: 701772. Tenore, K.R., Cal, R.M., Hanson, R.B., LopezJamar, E., Santiago, G., Tietjen, J.H., 1984 Coastal upwelling off the Rías Bajas, Galicia, Northwest Spain. II. Benthic studies. Rapports et Processverbaux des Reunions du Conseil International pour la Exploration de la Mer 183, 91–100. Toba, D.R., Thompson, D.S., Chew, K.K., Anderson, G.J., Miller, M.B., 1992. Guide to Manila clam culture in Washington. Wash Sea Grant Publ, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. TylerWalters, H., 2007. Cerastoderma edule . . Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Subprogramme [online]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 29/10/2012]. Available from: Urrutia, M.B., Ibarrola, I., Iglesiais, J.I.P., Navarro, E., 1999. Energetics of growth and reproduction in hightidal population of the clam Venerupis decussata from Urdaibai Estuary (Basque Country, N. Spain). Journal of Sea Research, 42: 3548. Varela, M., 1992. Upwelling and phytoplankton ecology in Galician (NW Spain) rías and shelf waters. Boletín del Instituto Español de Oceanografía 8, 57–74.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 86 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Varela, M., Fuentes, J.M., Penas, E., Cabanas, J.M., 1984. Producción primaria de las rías bajas de Galicia. Cuadernos da Áreas de Ciencias Marinas. Actas do Primeiro Seminario de Ciencias do Mar. Edición do Castro 1: 173182. Varela, M., Prego, R., Pazos, Y., Morono, A., 2005. Influence of upwelling and river runoff interaction on phytoplankton assemblages in a Middle Galician Ria and Comparison with northern and southern rias (NW Iberian Peninsula). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. Vol. 64, no. 4: 721737. Viaroli, P., Bartoli, M., Bondavalli, C., Christian, R.R., Giordani, G., Naldi, M., 1996. Macrophyte communities and their impact on benthic fluxes of oxygen, sulphide and nutrients in shallow eutrophic environments. Hydrobiologia 329, 105119. Viaroli, P., Giordani, G., Bartoli, M., Naldi, M., Azzoni, R., Nizzoli, D., Ferrari, I., Zaldívar, J.M., Bencivelli, S., Castaldelli, G., Fano, E.A., 2006. In P.J. Wangersky (ed),The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Estuaries, Volume 5/H: 197232 . Vilas, F., Bernabeu, A., Méndez, G., 2005. Sediment distribution pattern in the Rías Baixas (NW Spain): Main facies and hydrodynamic dependence. Journal of Marine Systems, 54; 261–276. Vilela H., 1950. Vida bentonica de Tapes decussata (L.). Travaux de la Station de Biologie Maritime de Lisbonne 13:120pp. Villalba García, A., Carballal, M.J., López, M.C., 1993. Estudio del ciclo gonadal de tres especies de almeja, Venerupis decussata , Venerupis pullastra y Venerupis romboides de la rías gallegas. Act. IV Congr. Nac. Acuic.: 341346. Villalba García, A., Santamarina, J., Ferro, B., 2001. Estudio dunha neoplasia diseminada e outras alteracións patolóxicas que afectan ás poboacións de berberecho Cerastoderma edule das rías galegas, Consellería de Pesca e Asuntos Marítimos, CIMA, Memoria da actividade do ano 2001: 4445. Walne, P.R., 1976. Experiments on the culture in the sea of the butterfish Venerupis decussata L. Aquatica Culture, 8: 371381. Waples, R.S., Do, C., 1994. Genetic risk associated with supplementation of Pacific salmonids: captive broodstock programmes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51 (Suppl. 1): 310–329. Ward, R.D., 2006. The importance of identifying spatial population structure in restocking and stock enhancement programmes. Fisheries Research, 80: 9–18 Whitfield, D.P., 2003. Predation by Eurasian sparrowhawks produces densitydependent mortality of wintering redshanks. J. Anim. Ecol. 72: 27–35. Widdows, J., Brinsley, M. D., Salkeld, P. N., Elliott, M., 1998. Use of annular flumes to determine the influence of current velocity and bivalves on material flux at the sediment– water iterface. Estuaries, 21: 552–559. Xie, Q., Burnell, G.M., 1994. A comparative study of the gametogenic cycles of the clams Tapes philippinarum (Adams & Reeve 1850) and Tapes decussata (Linnaeus) on the south coast of Ireland. J. Shellfish Res. 13 (2): 467–472. Yankson, K., 1986. Precocious sexual maturity in (Bruguiere) reared in the laboratory. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 52: 7980. Yap, W.G., 1978. Population biology of the Japanese littleneck clam, Tapes philippinarum , in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Pac. Sci., 31(3): 223244. Zentilin A., 1990. Venericoltura in Laguna di Marano. In Tapes philippinarum : Biologia e sperimentazione. E.S.A.V.: 201–205.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 87 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

LEGAL REFERENCES

Artículo 148.1.11 de la Constitución española (Article http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_dat 148.1.11 of the Spanish Constitution) os/Admin/constitucion.t8.html Estatutos de Autonomía de Galicia en el artículo 28.5 http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_dat (Statutes of Autonomy of Galicia in Article 28.5) os/Derogadas/r0-ga-l8-2004.html Ley de Pescade Galicia del 11/2008, del 3 de diciembre, http://www.xunta.es/Doc/Dog2009.nsf modificada por la Ley 6/2009 del 11de diciembre (Fisheries /FichaContenido/39DB6?OpenDocume Law of Galicia 11/2008 of 3 rd December, as amended by Law nt 6/2009 of 11 th December) General fishing and shellfishing Management Plan: http://www.xunta.es/Doc/Dog2002.nsf /FichaContenido/B646?OpenDocument Decreto 423/1993, 17 de diciembre, por el que se refunde la normativa vigente en materia de marisqueo, modificado por el Decreto 237/2002, de 11 de julio (Decree 423/1993 of 17 th December on consolidation of the current regulations on shellfishing, as amended by Decree 237/2002 of 11 th July) Orden del 23 diciembre/2011 que regula y define las http://www.xunta.es/dog/Publicados/ condiciones para presentar el Plan de Explotación (Order of 2012/20120102/AnuncioCA06-271211- 23 rd December/2011 that regulates and defines the 10441_es.html conditions for submitting the Management Plan) Ley del régimen sancionador 1 1/2008, 3 diciembre (Penalty http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_dat system law 11/2008 of 3 rd December) os/CCAA/ga-l11-2008.t14.html Decreto 114/2007, (de 31 de mayo), de mo dificación del http://www.xunta.es/Doc/Dog2007.nsf Decreto 425/1993, (de 17 de diciembre) (Decree 114/2007 /FichaContenido/1CADA?OpenDocume (31 st May) , amending Decree 425/1993 (17 th December) ) nt Decreto 210/2000, (de 21 de julio) (Decree 210/2000 (21 st http://www.xunta.es/Doc/Dog2000.nsf July)) /FichaContenido/11EE2?OpenDocume nt

Orden de 31 de marzo de 2011 por la que se modifica la http://www.xunta.es/Doc/Dog201 1.nsf Orden de 26 de octubre de 2004 ( Order of 31 st March 2011 , /FichaContenido/12CD2?OpenDocume amending the Order of 26 th October 2004) nt Decreto 97/2005, (de 17 de abril) (Decree 97/2005 (17 th http://www.xunta.es/Doc/Dog2005.nsf April)) /FichaContenido/D206?OpenDocumen t Decreto 15/2011, del 28 de enerode la Ley de Pesca de http://www.xunta.es/Doc/Dog2011.nsf Galicia (Decree 15/2011 of 28 th January the Fisheries Law of /FichaContenido/65FE?OpenDocument Galicia) Decreto 419/1993, de 17 de diciembre , modificado por el http://www.xunta.es/Doc/Dog2006.nsf Decreto 101/2006, de 8 de junio (Decree 419/1993 (17 /FichaContenido/13F3A?OpenDocume December) , as amended by Decree 101/2006 of 8 th June ) n

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 88 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

UE 853/2004, del 29 de abril (EU 853/2004 of 29 th April) http://eur - lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.d o?uri=CONSLEG:2004R0853:20070101: ES:PDF

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 89 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Appendices

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Appendix 1.1.Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale Considerations: • Taking into account the opinion of stakeholders, predators’ removal and the potential impact of the dead seaweed removal on the species accidentally caught during this activity, were only considered in PI concerning ecosystem impacts (2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3). • All aspects regarding the impact of seed planting of the exotic manila clam on the ecosystem were assessed with additional indicators (PI 2.5.1 M SG60b, SG80b, SG100b; PI 2.5.2.M SG60e, SG80e, SG100e; and PI 2.5.3.M. SG60g, SG80f, SG80g, SG100f, 100g). • To avoid repetitions and facilitate the comprehension of scoring tables it was decided to use a single table for the four species when the scores obtained are the same for all. Evaluation Table PI 1.1.1 Venerupis philippinarum ; Venerupis decussata ; Venerupis corrugata ; Cerastoderma edule The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing SG Issue Met? Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a NA It is likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.

80 a NA It is highly likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. This PI was scored using the Risk-Based Framework (RBF). A SICA workshop was held in Abanqueiro on the 5 th September 2012. See Appendix 1.2.Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs. The SICA and PSA were carried out See Appendix 1.2.1. and 1.2.2. for the results. b NA The stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point.

100 a NA There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired.

b NA 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 .

References

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 90 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

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

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 96

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 91 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 1.1.2 Venerupis philippinarum ; Venerupis decussata ; Venerupis corrugata ; Cerastoderma edule PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a NA Generic limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category. See 80a) 80 a NA Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. According to the MSC Certification Requirements, when PI 1.1.1 is scored using the RBF, this PI is given a default score of 80. b NA The limit reference point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. As above c NA The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level

consistent with B MSY or a measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. As above

d NA Key low trophic level species, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. As above

100 b NA The limit reference point is set above the level at which t here is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity following consideration of precautionary issues .

c NA The target reference point is such that the stock is maintained at a level

consistent with B MSY or a measure or surrogate with similar intent 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.

References MSC Certification Requeriments V 1.2 and Guidance V 1.0

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 92 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 1.1.3 Venerupis philippinarum ; Venerupis decussata ; Venerupis corrugata ; Cerastoderma edule PI 1.1.3 Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a NA Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies which have a reasonable expectation of success are in place. According to the Guidance MSC Certification Requirements V 1.0, PI 1.1.3 shall only be scored when the Principle 1, Stock Status PI 1.1.1 indicates that a stock is depleted, that is “is consistently below the target reference point, and which may be approaching the point at which recruitment is impaired”, which is not the case of the target species. Moreover as RBF was used for PI 1.1.1. this PI is not scored. b NA A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 30 years or 3 times its generation time. For cases where 3 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

c NA Monitoring is in place to determine whether they are effective in rebuilding the stock within a specified timeframe.

80 a NA Where stocks are depleted rebuilding strategies are in place.

b NA A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the depleted stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time . For cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

c NA There is evidence that they are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on simulation modelling or previous performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified timeframe.

100 a NA Where stocks are depleted, strategies are demonstrated to be rebui lding stocks continuously and there is strong evidence that rebuilding will be complete within the specified timeframe .

b NA The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is specified which does not exceed one generation time for the depleted stock.

References MSC Certification Requeriments V 1.2 and Guidance V 1.0 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 93 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 1.1.4 Venerupis corrugata The fishery has negligible discernible impa ct on the genetic structure of the PI 1.1.4 population. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The fishery is unlikely to impact genetic structure of wild populations to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. See 80 a)

80 a Y The fishery is highly unlikely to impact genetic structure of wild populations to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Until 5 years ago, natural seed of Venerupis corrugata from other Rias of Galicia was sowed in Ria Arousa to increase the production of this species. This practice is no longer undertaken and was replaced by the sowing of the TURFs with seed produced in local hatcheries. The University of A Coruña (Spain) has conducted a study to find out if there are genetic differences among populations of Venerupis corrugata from different Galician Rias. They analysed 13 microsatellite loci and 3 mitochondrial markers (16S, CitB, COI) in five populations from Ría do Barqueiro, Ría de Ferrol, Ría de Camariñas, Ría de Arousa and Ría de Vigo as well as from Faro (South Portugal). The results revealed, on the one hand, no significant differences among populations from Rias and, on the other hand, genetically differences between these populations and the Portuguese V. corrugata population (Ana Ínsua, University of A Coruña, pers. Comm.). Moreover, overall genetic variability was found to be moderate for all populations studied (Ana Ínsua and Josefina Méndez, University of Coruña, pers. comm.). These results indicate, in principle, that both the sowing of seed or the use of broodstock from other Rias Galegas does not affect the genetic integrity of wild populations of V. corrugata from Ria Arousa.

The introduction of non-native genetic strains of aquatic organisms from aquaculture has been a concern for some time (Hutchings, 1991). In the case of the sowing of seed produced in hatchery, several practices were put in place in order to prevent any impact on the genetic structure of wild populations, notably: i) culture of wild local genotype of native species by using a broodstock from Ria Arousa; ii) frequent replenishment of broodstock from the wild (every fifteen days); and iii) use of a high number of breeders (200-300 individuals) in each spawning induction.

These practices, per se , do not guarantee that the genetic integrity of wild populations is not affected. Indeed, the hatchery stock can become inbreed if insufficient attention is made to maintaining large numbers of broodstock and ensuring that all or most contribute to the next generation (Ward, 2006). Nevertheless, the team believes that the measures adopted are sufficient to admit that is highly unlikely that the fishery impacts the genetic structure of wild populations to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 94 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The fishery has negligible discernible impa ct on the genetic structure of the PI 1.1.4 population. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 100 a N An independent peer -reviewed scientific assessment confirms with a high degree of certainty that there are no risks to the genetic structure of the wild population associated with the enhancement activity. The team considered that this issue was not met because there is no information that allows ascertaining if there are, or there are not, differences on genetic diversity between wild populations and hatchery produced clams. In view of the above, a recommendation was set in order to scientifically ascertain that genetic diversity of hatchery produced clams does not differ significantly from wild populations. References Hutchings, 1991; Ward, 2006

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 95 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.1. Venerupis philippinarum ; Venerupis decussata ; Venerupis corrugata ; Cerastoderma edule PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The harvest strategy is expe cted to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. See 80 a) b Y The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. See 80 b) c Y Monitoring is in place that is e xpected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. See 80 b) 80 a Y The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. In Galicia, the regional government regulations promote a co -management system between fisher organisations and the fisheries authority through TURFs. Since 1992, the exploitation is granted to fishermen association (“Cofradía”), Cooperative or Producers Organization after presentation of an annual plan of exploitation and management (Molares & Freire, 2003). It is important to note that in the case of the Ría Arousa clam fisheries a single management plan for the entire Ría does not exists. Indeed, each fishermen association (“ Cofradía ”), Cooperative or Producers Organization presents a management plan considering the status of the target species populations within their TURF. These management plans can be consulted through the following website: www.pescagalicia.com .

There is a well-developed strategy that is reviewed on an annual basis in order to produce the MP (www.pescagalicia.com; in the case of the UC see Martinez, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) which is validated by the fishing administration of Galicia. The strategy is based on fishery- dependent data, namely on abundance, distribution and length structure of the target species populations. Since BMSY and FMSY cannot be used as reference points in most bivalve species, such as the case of the species under assessment, it is fundamental to decide which proxy, and respective limits should be used to evaluate the stock status in these fisheries at least by TURF. However, taking into consideration the life cycle and population dynamics of the target species and the historical data on landings (data can be consulted in the website www.pescagalicia.com ) it is reasonable to assume that the harvest strategy is achieving the objective of maintaining the stocks at a point that does not hamper the maintenance of the population at sustainable levels. The main components of the harvesting strategy are: i) limited access rights, given through fishing licenses; ii) PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 96 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

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

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) minimum land ing sizes; iii) daily quota ; iv) total number of fishing days per month; v) closed season; vi) rotational harvesting areas; vii) maintenance of the production areas and viii) control points. These management plans also includes economic and production objectives, stock assessments and a financial programme including expected total yearly incomes and expenses.

b Y The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but monit oring is in place and evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. There is a monitoring program in place that aims to collect data twice a year on the abundance, distribution and length structure of the target species as well to estimate natural mortality. In general, the harvest strategy has been shown to result in the maintenance of the target species populations at healthy levels. Notwithstanding, some significant decrease in the landings were observed during some years. But this is related not to overexploitation but to recruitment failure or massive juvenile and/or adult mortalities due to unfavourable environmental conditions (Molares et al. , 2008) 100 a N The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Since there are currently no target levels for the target species, it was decided to adopt the precautionary principle and therefore this PI issue was not met. b N The performance of the harvest strategy has been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. As above

d Y The harvest strategy is periodically review ed and improved as necessary. The harvesting strategy is periodically reviewed and is improved as necessary. As was mentioned previously, there is a monitoring program in place that aims to collect data twice a year on the abundance, distribution and length structure of the target species which allows following annual trends and to adjust fishing effort and daily quotas as necessary. www.pescagalicia.com ; Martinez , 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 201 2; References Molares & Freire, 2003; Molares et al. , 2008

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 97 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.2. Venerupis philippinarum ; Venerupis decussata ; Venerupis corrugata ; Cerastoderma edule PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Generally understood harvest rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. See 80 a) c Y There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. See 80 c) 80 a Y Well defined harvest control rules are i n place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. According to Rice & Connolly (2007), HCR are defined as being the adjustment of a management measure based on the evaluation of an indicator against an established reference point. Apart from the surveys conducted regularly to assess the status of the stock, several information is provided by the harvesters to the respective Fishermen Organizations which allows adjusting, whenever necessary, the technical measures that manage these fisheries. For instance, if a high concentration of spat or juveniles is found, the area is immediately closed. The area will reopen for the fishery only when most of the population attains the MLS. Although there are no limit reference points set for the fisheries under assessment, the team considered that the harvest control rules are well defined and consistent with the harvest strategy. b Y The selection of the harvest control r ules takes into account the main uncertainties. The exploitation strategy adopted each year (www.pescagalicia.com ; in the case of the Unit of Certification see Martinez, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) can be changed whenever necessary (e.g recruitment failure or high natural mortalities due to storms, biotoxins, high input of fresh water, etc.) by reducing the fishing effort both in terms of fishing days per month and area, and number of harvesters as well as by adjusting daily quotas. Furthermore, fishing can be stopped or controlled when prices decrease below a level that is considered unprofitable. c Y Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. In general, abundance, distribution and length structure of the target species populations, as well as annual production have remained relatively stable in recent years, indicating that the system implemented is

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 98 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

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

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) appropriate and effective. 100 a N Well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Since ther e are currently no target levels for the target species stocks, it was decided to be precautionary and therefore this PI issue is not met. b N The design of the harvest control rules takes into account a wide range of uncertainties. The team believes that harvest control rules does not take into account a wide range of uncertainties, namely the effects of environmental changes on the target species stocks. c N Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. Since there are currently no target levels for the target species stocks, it was decided to be precautionary and therefore this PI issue is not met. www.pescagalicia.com ; in the case of the UC see Martinez , 2007, 2008, References 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012; Rice & Connolly (2007)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 99 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.3. Venerupis philippinarum ; Venerupis decussata ; Venerupis corrugata ; Cerastoderma edule PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy.

See 80 a)

b Y 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. See 80 b) 80 a Y Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. The sustainable exploitation of fishing resources implies the implementation of harvesting strategies that must be supported by both technical and scientific information. In the case of the fisheries under assessment there are various information regarding the biology of the species that enabled the introduction of certain technical measures to manage the fishery, such as MLS and seasonal closures. Fishing data (abundance, distribution and length structure of the target species populations) is collected twice a year which allows following the status of the stocks. This information can be summarised and is essential for the management of the fishery. All harvesters operating on the fisheries are licensed within the fishery management system. No other harvesters can enter the fisheries. The number of harvesters is known as well as the number of fishing vessels operating in each fishery. The ecology of the target species is known and the environmental conditions of Ria Arousa are well understood. b Y 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. Fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule. Indeed, all fishery removals are controlled in situ on a daily basis. Data includes fishing date, amount of clams caught per target species (in weight) and harvester, length of the individuals caught, fishing effort (harvest time) and fishing area. Additionally, the BC collects data on the abundance, distribution and length structure of the target species populations following a sampling scheme designed by the Administration. The analysis of the data allows to follow

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 100 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) trends and to adjust management measures if necessary. c Y There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. All harvesters and fishing fleet operating in the fisheries are licensed within the fishery management system. Although IUU may occur inside TURFs the stakeholders considered it negligible due to high control exerted by 24h surveillance service contracted by the Fishermen Organisations or Administration. Yet, the water bailiffs effectively enforces individual harvesting limits and avoid intrusions of illegal fishers inside the TURF they control (Molares & Freire, 2003). It is believed that monitoring and enforcement operations relevant to IUU fishing are adequate to provide good information on the extent of this. No other fisheries target the species under assessment in Ria Arousa. Although there are other bivalve fisheries that accidentally may catch individuals of the species under assessment, it is considered that the major part of the catches is reported. Recreational fishing for personal use may also occur but mostly within the “free harvesting areas”. Some estimation on the amount caught by recreational fishers exists, however they are not very reliable. In the TURFs under the administration of the fishing guilds recreational fishing is usually negligible due to surveillance of the water bailiffs.

Overall, the team considered that there is good information concerning other removals from the fishery. 100 a N A comprehensive range of information (on stock struc ture, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. The team considered that a “comprehensive range” of information would imply better information, than is currently available, namely on the removals from recreational fishing and on the environment. b N 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 inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty. Although data on abundance, distribution and lengt h structure of the target species populations is determined twice a year, the team believes that there is not a good understanding of inherent uncertainties in the information. References Molares & Freire, 2003

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 101 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 102 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.4. Venerupis philippinarum ; Venerupis decussata ; Venerupis corrugata ; Cerastoderma edule PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 b NA The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points.

c NA The assessment identifies major sources of uncertainty.

80 a NA The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule. When PI 1.1.1 is scored using the RBF, this PI is given a default score of 80. c NA The assessment takes uncertainty into account. As above e NA The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. As above 100 a NA The assessment is appropriate for th e 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.

c NA The assessment takes into account uncertainty and evaluates stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.

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

e NA The assessment has been internally and externally peer reviewe d.

References MSC Certification Requeriments V 1.2 and Guidance V 1.0

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 103 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.5. Venerupis corrugata There is a strategy in place for managing the hatchery enhancement activity such PI 1.2.5 that it does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the genetic diversity of the wild population. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, which are expected to maintain the genetic structure of the population at levels compatible with the SG80 Genetic outcome level of performance (PI 1.1.4). See 100 a) b Y The measures are considered likely to work based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory, or comparison with similar fisheries/species). See 100 b) 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, which is expected to maintain the genetic structure of the population at levels compatible with the SG80 Genetic outcome level of performance (PI 1.1.4). See 100 a) b Y There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work based on information directly relevant to the population(s) involved. According to Ward (2006), genetic analysi s needs to be reasonably in - depth, by examining a significant number of individuals per putative population for 10 or more polymorphic nuclear DNA markers and /or by examining mitochondrial genes which have the advantage of being more sensitive to changes in population size. All this was followed in the project titled “Identification of DNA markers in the Venerupis pullastra clam and its application in the analysis of genetic variability and population structure” (results not published yet) and therefore there is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work based on information directly relevant to the population(s) involved. c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully, if necessary. Microsatellite markers were developed and characterised, and the genetic diversity of wild populations of Venerupis corrugata was determined which allows evaluating if the partial strategy is being implemented successfully, if necessary. (project “Identification of DNA markers in the Venerupis pullastra clam and its application in the analysis of genetic variability and population structure”; results not published yet) 100 a Y There is a strategy in place to maintain the genetic structure of the population at levels compatible with the SG80 Genetic outcome level of performance (PI 1.1.4). According to Gaffney (2006), three primary genetic concerns should be taken in consideration before implementing shellfish restoration projects: (1) identification and use of the correct genetic material for producing hatchery lines; (2) maintenance of genetic variability in hatchery stocks;

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 104 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

There is a strategy in place for managing the hatchery enhancement activity such PI 1.2.5 that it does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the genetic diversity of the wild population. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) and (3) maintaining Ne in the wild population. All this concerns are reflected in the genetic strategy in place which has as objectives: i) to avoid the introduction of non-native genetic strains; ii) to avoid outbreeding depression; and iii) to avoid inbreeding depression. With this purpose, several hatchery practices were adopted, namely: i) culture of wild local genotype of native species by using a broodstock from Ria Arousa; ii) frequent replenishment of broodstock from the wild (every fifteen days); and iii) use of a high number of breeders (200-300 individuals) in each spawning induction. b N The strategy is based on in -de pth knowledge of the genetic structure of the population, and testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Experiments performed with Venerupis decussata showed that the juveniles produced presented a lower genetic variability when compared to both broodstock and wild populations ( Martínez-Patiño et al. , 2012). This is a consequence of the methods used and on reproduction dynamics of the broostock in hatchery. Indeed, the result attained suggests that only a small part of the breeders have contributed to the next generation ( Martínez- Patiño et al. , 2012). Nevertheless, is important to emphasize that the experiments used a lower number of breeders (45-150) than currently used in the UC hatchery. According to Ana Ínsua and Josefina Méndez (University of A Coruña, pers. comm.) the higher the number of breeders that comprises the hatchery broodstock the lower the probability of having differences on the genetic structure between juveniles produced and natural populations. In addition, this probability decreases even more because the broodstock is replaced every fifteen days (Ana Ínsua and Josefina Méndez, University of A Coruña, pers. comm.). In view of the above, it is of utmost importance in order to scientifically ascertain that genetic diversity of hatchery produced clams does not differ significantly from wild populations. c N There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully . There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective . As outline above, although microsatellite markers were developed and characterised, as well as the genetic diversity of wild populations was determined for the species, results on the comparison of the genetic structure between individuals produced in hatchery and from wild populations are not available and therefore the team considered that there is no evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. References Gaffney, 2006; Ward, 2006; Martínez -Patiño et al. , 2012

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 105 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

There is a strategy in place for managing the hatchery enhancement activity such PI 1.2.5 that it does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the genetic diversity of the wild population. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 106 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.6. Venerupis corrugata Information on the genetic structure of the population is adequate to determine PI 1.2.6 the risk posed by the enhancement activity and the effectiveness of the management of genetic diversity. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Qualitative or inferential information is available on the genetic structure of the population Information is adequate to broadly understand the likely impact of hatchery enhancement. See 80a) b Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage main genetic impacts of the enhancement activity on the stock, if necessary. See 80b) 80 a Y Qualitative or inferential information and some quantitativ e information are available on the genetic structure of the population. Information is sufficient to estimate the likely impact of hatchery enhancement. See 100 a) b Y Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage the main genetic impacts of the enhancement activity on the stock, if necessary. The studies conducted in the framework of the project “Identification of DNA markers in the Venerupis pullastra clam and its application in the analysis of genetic variability and population structure” and the results obtained so far (and the ones that are expected to be achieved) ensures enough information to support a partial strategy to manage the main impacts of the enhancement activity on the stock, if necessary. 100 a Y The geneti c structure of the population is understood in detail. Information is sufficient to estimate the impact of hatchery enhancement with a high degree of certainty . Although the results of the project titled “Identification of DNA markers in the Venerupis pullastra clam and its application in the analysis of genetic variability and population structure” were not published yet, according to the experts that participate in the project, the results obtained are sufficient to estimate the impact of hatchery enhancement with a high degree of certainty (Ana Ínsua and Josefina Méndez, University of A Coruña, pers. comm.). b N Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage the genetic impacts of the enhancement activity on the stock and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. As outline above, information on the genetic structure of Venerupis corrugata population exists. However, the team considered that the information is not adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage the genetic impacts of the enhancement activity on the stock and to evaluate with a high degree of certainty since the results concerning the PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 107 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Information on the genetic structure of the population is adequate to determine PI 1.2.6 the risk posed by the enhancement activity and the effectiveness of the management of genetic diversity. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) comparison of the genetic structure between hatchery produced individuals and wild stocks are not available. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 108 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.1. Venerupis philippinarum ; Venerupis decussata ; Venerupis corrugata ; Cerastoderma edule The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained PI 2.1.1 species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Main retained species are likely to be within biologi cally based limits (if not, go to scoring issue d below). See 100 b)

c Y If main retained species are 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. See 100 b)

d Y 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. See 100 b)

80 a Y Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue c below). See 100 b) c Y If main retained species are 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. See 100 b) 100 a Y There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits and fluctuating around their target reference points. See 100 b) b Y Target reference points are defined and retained species. According to the MSC certification requirements, retained species are those that are caught alongside the target species and which are retained and sold, or have a market value. According to stakeholders, in this fishery although other species may be caught along with the target species, none of them have commercial value and therefore are all discarded. Therefore, there are no retained species, main or otherwise, in this fishery.

References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 109 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.2 Venerupis philippinarum ; Venerupis decussata ; Venerupis corrugata ; Cerastoderma edule There is a strategy in place for ma naging retained species that is designed to ensure PI 2.1.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to mai ntain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. See 100 d)

b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plau sible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). See 100 d) 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. See 100 d) b Y There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. See 100 d) c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. See 100 d) 100 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing retained species. See 100 d) b Y Testi ng supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. See 100 d) c Y There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. See 100 d) d Y There i s some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. As outlined in PI 2.1.1 there are no retained species, main or otherwise, in this fishery and therefore the team agreed that there is no need to implement a formal management strategy for retained species. Nevertheless, the Cooperative has signed a commitment of intent about continuing to have no impact in the retained species and to inform the CB if PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 110 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

There is a strategy in place for ma naging retained species that is designed to ensure PI 2.1.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) this occurred. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 111 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.1.3 Venerupis philippinarum; Venerupis decussata; Venerupis corrugata; Cerastoderma edule PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Qualitative information is available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. See 100 d) b Y Information is ade quate to qualitatively assess outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. See 100 d) c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage main retained species. See 100 d) 80 a Y Qualitative information and some quantitative i nformation are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. See 100 d) b Y Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. See 100 d) c Y Information is adequate to suppo rt a partial strategy to manage main retained species. See 100 d) d Y Sufficient data continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy) See 100 d)

100 a Y Accurate and verifiable information is available on the catch of all retained species and the consequences for the status of affected populations. See 100 d) b Y Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with a high degree of certainty. See 100 d) c Y Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage retained species, and evaluate, with a high degree of certainty , whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 112 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) See 100 d)

d Y Monitoring of retained species is conducted in sufficient detail to assess on - going mortalities of all retained species. Information for similar fisheries carried out in Portuguese estuaries and costal lagoons using the same harvesting techniques shows that there are no retained species due to the nature of harvest and the way the gear are operated (Gaspar et al ., 2010). Based on this as well as what mentioned by stakeholders in RBF meeting, the team considered that there are no retained species in the fishery under analysis and therefore there is no need to gather any type of information related to this issue. Moreover the landing data show that there no retained species other than the target species. It is worth noting that all stakeholders referred that mortalities of discarded species is extremely low. Nevertheless, the Cooperative has signed a commitment of intent about continuing to have no impact in the retained species and to monitor the changes if this occurred. Refer ences

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 113 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.1 Harvester on foot and onboard with hand devices The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a NA Main bycatch species are likely to be within biologically based limits (if not, go to scoring issue b below).

b NA If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there are mitigation measures in place that are expected to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

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

80 a NA Main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based lim its (if not, go to scoring issue b below).

b NA If main bycatch species are outside biologically based limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

100 a NA There is a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within biologically based limits. This PI was scored using the Risk-Based Framework (RBF). A SICA workshop was held in Abanqueiro on the 5 th September 2012. See Appendix 1.2.Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs. The SICA and PSA were carried out See Appendix 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 for the results. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 114 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.2 Harvester on foot and onboard with hand devices There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the PI 2.2.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y 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. See 80 a )

b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). See 80 b)

80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, 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. According to the MSC certification requirements, bycatch species are “those species that are caught alongside the target species that are not retained and that are discarded as well as those that die because of unobserved fishing mortality”. Usually, main bycatch species as used is only applied to species that constitute more than 5% of the catch. See 100 a)

b Y 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. Bycatch only occurs when bullrakes are used. As it is mentioned in 100 a) there are no “main bycatch species” in the clam fisheries under assessment. The only commitment that the harvesters have to follow in relation to bycatch, is to discard all bycatch individuals in situ and immediately after being brought onboard or after sorting. Taking into consideration the bycatch species that may occur in the catch (the crab Liocarcinus spp. and the netted dog whelk Nassarius reticulatus and rarely the starfishes Asterias rubens and Marthasterias glacialis ) it is believed that those obligations are sufficient to ensure a high survival rate of the individuals discarded (Kaiser & Spencer, 1995; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007). Due to the way the gear is operated by harvesters on foot and from boat as well as the behavior of the gear during harvesting, the impact on the individuals that entered in contact with the gear but that were not retained is expected to be extremely low (Leitão & Gaspar, 2007). c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 115 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the PI 2.2.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) successfully. As mentioned before, the only commitment that the harvesters have to follow in relation to bycatch, is to discard all bycatch individuals in situ and immediately after being brought onboard or after sorting. Taking into consideration the bycatch species identified, these procedures are enough to ensure a high survival rates for discarded individuals and therefore the team believes that there is no need to put in place a formal strategy for bycatch. This is reinforced by the results reported by Coo (2010) who stated that all bycatch species identified (please see SG 100a) are ubiquitous and abundant throughout Ria Arousa, indicating that this fishery does pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations. 100 a Y There is a strategy in place f or managing and minimising bycatch. All stakeholders were unanimous in saying that the proportion of bycatch species in the catch from bullrakes is extremely low not surpassing 5% and therefore none of the bycatch species fall into “main bycatch species” category. Bycatch species comprises the crab Liocarcinus spp., the netted dog whelk Nassarius reticulatus and rarely the starfishes Asterias rubens and Marthasterias glacialis . In the RBF meeting, stakeholders mentioned that the proportion of damaged bycatch species in the catch is almost nil and since bycatch individuals are immediately discarded in situ the survival rate is expected to be extremely high as reported by Kaiser & Spencer (1995) for discarded starfishes and by Kaiser & Spencer (1995) and Leitão & Gaspar (2007) for whelks.

Nevertheless, the Cooperative has signed a commitment of intent about continuing to have no impact in the bycatch species and to inform the CB if this occurred. b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy wil l work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. Although the team agreed that there is no need to put in place a specific strategy for managing bycatch populations, the team, to be precautionary, decided that SG 100 b) is not met since there is no quantitative information for these fisheries. c N There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. As above d N There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. As abo ve References Kaiser & Spencer, 1995; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007; Coo, 2010

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 116 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the PI 2.2.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 117 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.2.3 Harvester on foot and onboard with hand devices Information on the na ture and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the PI 2.2.3 risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Qualitative information is available on the main bycatch spec ies affected by the fishery. See 80 a) b NA Information is adequate to broadly understand outcome status with respect to biologically based limits According to the MSC Certification Requirements, when PI 2.2.1 is scored using the RBF, this issue is not scored. c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage bycatch. See 80 c) 80 a N Qualitative information and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the fishery. Bycatch data from both fisheries is mainly qualitative since there is no requirement to report bycatch along with harvest data. In subtidal areas bullrakes are used and thus some non-target individuals may occur in the catches. During the RBF meeting, bycatch species were indentified and it was referred that bycatch is extremely low not surpassing 5%. Thus, no main bycatch species occurs. Moreover, stakeholders said that the proportion of damaged bycatch individuals is almost nil and therefore the survival rate of discarded species is expected to be nearly 100%. Nevertheless, since there is no quantitative data concerning bycatch, this issue is not met. In view of the above, a condition was set aimed at implementing a programme to collect data on bycatch. b NA Info rmation is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. According to the MSC Certification Requirements, when PI 2.2.1 is scored using the RBF, this issue is not scored. c Y Information is adequate to support a par tial strategy to manage main bycatch species. Due to the reasons pointed out in PI 2.2.2, the team believes that there is no need to put in place a strategy to manage bycatch species. The procedures adopted by harvesters in relation to bycatch species (release of individuals in situ and immediately after being brought onboard or after sorting) are considered to be enough to ensure a high survival rate of discarded individuals. d Y 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 PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 118 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Information on the na ture and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the PI 2.2.3 risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the strategy).

Main bycatch species is only applied to species that constitute more than 5% of the catch. Since the proportion of bycatch species does not exceeds 5% there is no main bycatch species in the fishery. Notwithstanding, according to Coo (2010) all bycatch species identified for the fishery are ubiquitous and abundant throughout Ria Arousa indicating that this fishery does pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations. 100 a N Accurate and verifiable information is available on the amount of all bycatch and the consequences for the status of affected populations. Although the team agreed that there is no need to put in place a specific strategy for managing bycatch populations, the team, to be precautionary, decided that this SG is not met since quantitative information has not been collected and therefore there are no accurate and verifiable information for this fishery. b NA Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty . According to the MSC Certification Requirements, when PI 2.2.1 is s cored using the RBF, this issue is not scored. c N 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 . Although the team agreed t hat there is no need to put in place a specific strategy for managing bycatch populations, the team, to be precautionary, decided that this SG is not met due to the lack of quantitative information related to bycatch. d N Monitoring of bycatch data is co nducted in sufficient detail to assess on - going mortalities of all bycatch species. Although no main bycatch species occurs in both fisheries and mortality of discarded individuals is expected to be low, the team decided that this SG was not met since there is no monitoring of bycatch and therefore there is no quantitative data on bycatch. References Coo, 2010

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 119 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.1 Harvester on foot and onboard with hand devices The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Known effects of the fishery are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. See 100 a)

b Y Known direct effects are unlikely to create unacceptable impact on E TP species. See 100 b) 80 a Y The effects of the fishery are known and are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. See 100 a) b Y Direct effects are highly unlikely to create un acceptable impact on ETP species. See 100 b) c Y Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. See 100 c) 100 a Y There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of the fishery are with in limits of national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. The team did not find any report on the occurrence of ETP species (including birds) in the harvesting area of the UC. Moreover, the stakeholders that were consulted also referred that they were not aware of the occurrence of ETP species within the UC. Nevertheless, assuming that ETP species occurs in the UC, given the harvesting methods used to collect target species there is likely to be little adverse interaction between the fishery and ETP species, or threatened ecological communities. b Y There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on ETP species. Potential direct sources of risk to ETP species are limited to: i) harvesters may disturb ETP species inhabiting areas where the target species are collected; and ii) interaction between ETP and fishing vessels during transit between port and fishing grounds or during harvesting operations. However, since no ETP species were identified as occupying the same fishing grounds as the target species within the UC no significant

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 120 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

detrimental directs effects of the fishery on ETP species are expected. c Y There is a high degree of confidence that there are n o significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. If ETP sp ecies occurs within the UC, the potential indirect effects would be the removal of target species as a food source for ETP species and habitat disturbance and modification through harvesting and enhancement procedures, respectively. Considering that: i) the current management regime of target species stocks seems to ensure the maintenance of the populations at a sustainable level; ii) enhancement activities concerning substrate preparation/modification increase the abundance of the target species in the area; iii) whenever high natural mortalities occurs, Venerupis corrugata seed from hatchery is sowed, increasing the abundance of this species within the harvesting area of the UC; and iv) the effects of harvesting methods and enhancement procedures (not including the adding of substrate) on habitat causes little physical damage or disturbance to the biophysical environment (or the restoration of the natural system is within 1 year) (e.g. Spencer, 1996; Spencer et al. , 1996; Kaiser et al. , 2001; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007); the team believes that, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. http://www.faunagallega.es.tl/# ; http://www.medioruralemar.xunta.es/; References Spencer, 1996; Spencer et al. , 1996; Kaiser et al. , 2001; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 121 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.2 Harvester on foot and onboard with hand devices The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements;

• Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; PI 2.3.2 • Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and

• Minimise mortality of ETP species.

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place that minimise mortality, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. See 100 a) b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). See 10 0 b) 80 a Y There is a strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, that is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. See 100 a)

b Y There is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. See 100 b) c Y There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented success fully. See 100 c) 100 a Y There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality that is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. The impact of the fisheries under assessment on ETP species is considered negligible and therefore there is no formal management strategy in place for the protection and conservation of ETP species. Nevertheless, Law 42/2007 of the 13 th December, on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity, establishes the duty of the government to classify those species of wildlife whose conservation requires specific protection measures. In this way, a Governmental Conservation Program was put in place for ETP species, the purpose of which is the recovery and sustained long-term survival of these species. In the framework of this program some Conservation and Recovery PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 122 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements;

• Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; PI 2.3.2 • Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and

• Minimise mortality of ETP species.

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Plans are being designed for ETP species. The plans designed so far can be consulted on the website of the Xunta de Galicia (http://www.medioruralemar.xunta.es/). b Y The strategy is mainly based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved, and a quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. The team believes that for the fisheries under assessment there is no need to implement a formal management strategy for the protection of ETP species since no detrimental indirect or direct effects on these species are expected. c Y There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. No detrimental direct effects on ETP species related to these fisheries is expected considering all the aspects inherent to the fisheries themselves such as, harvesting techniques, target species distribution, management plan, etc. Moreover, ETP species that rely on the target species for food were never reported within the fishing grounds of UC. Nevertheless, if ETP species that feed primarily on any of the target species in the UC, the potential indirect effects would be the removal of the clams as food sources. Thus, the team agreed that the only strategy needed to be implemented is related to the target species. The harvesting strategy adopted as well as enhancement procedures ensures a maximum productivity of the TURF by both minimizing natural and harvesting mortality and increasing abundance, maintaining in this way the target species populations at healthy levels. It is worth noting that trends on abundance and distribution clearly evidence that the management strategy is being implemented successfully. Although in some years it was observed a significant decrease in abundance of the target species, this was not related to harvesting but as a consequence of unfavourable environmental conditions that induces mass mortalities in the spat and juveniles (Molares et al. , 2008) In these years seed is sowed to increase the production of the UC area, also increasing, this way, the food items in the area. The addition of sediment also does not have an impact on ETP species, since no ETP species occur within the UC TURF. d Y There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. As mentioned in 100 c), there is no need to design a formal strategy for ETP PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 123 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • Meet national and international requirements;

• Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; PI 2.3.2 • Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and

• Minimise mortality of ETP species.

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) species. The only strategy ne eded to be implemented is related to the target species (please see 100 c)). Nevertheless, the Cooperative has signed a commitment of intent about continuing to have no impact in the ETPs species and to inform the CB if this occurred. References http://www.medioruralemar.xunta.es/ ; Molares et al. , 2008 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 124 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.3.3 Harvester on foot and onboard with hand devices Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate the fishery related mortality of ETP species. Sea 80 a) b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species. See 80 b) c Y Information is adequate to support measures to manage the impact on ETP species. See 80 c) 80 a Y Sufficient data is available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species. Harvesting in these fisheries involves hand harvesting using rudimentary tools or bullraking limiting the potential for impacts on any ETP species. No interaction with ETP species has been reported or is considered likely to occur independently of the harvesting method used and therefore no formal assessment has been conducted. b Y Information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. ETP for Galicia are identified and management plans are in place to promote the recovery and conservation of ETP species. Of the species classified as ETP for Galicia, none of them seems to be affected by the clam fisheries and therefore there is no need to implement a specific monitoring program for this fishery. c Y Information is sufficient to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impact on ETP species. According to de Coo et al . (2012) of the species present in the TURF under analysis that predate on the target species none of them are considered ETP species. Moreover, SEO Birdlife mentioned by e-mail that in the area of the “Sociedade Cooperativa Ria de Arousa” does not occur any bird species considered as ETP. Thus, the team believes that for the clam fisheries there is no need to implement a formal management strategy for the protection of ETP species since no detrimental indirect or direct effects on these species are expected. Nevertheless, the Cooperative has signed a commitment of intent about PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 125 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) continuing to have no impact in the ETPs species and to monitor the changes if this occurred. 100 a N Information is sufficient to quantitatively estimate outcome status of ETP species with a high degree of certainty. As outlined above, no ETP species in relation to the fisheries under assessment were identified neither for the Units of Certification nor Ria Arousa. However, to be precautionary, the team considers that the criteria for SG80 are met but not the criteria for SG100 due to the uncertainty related to the scarcity of quantitative information on ETP for Ria Arousa. SG100 criteria may be met at some point in the future if better information becomes available. b N Accurate and verifiable information is available on the magnitude of all impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. As above

c N Information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impact, minimise mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate, with a high degree of certainty , whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. See 100 a)

References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 126 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.1 Harvester on foot with hand devices The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y The fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structu re and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. See 100 a) 80 a Y The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. See 100 a) 100 a Y There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. This PI was scored using the Risk-Based Framework (RBF). A SICA workshop was held in Abanqueiro on the 5 th September 2012. See Appendix 1.2. Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs. The SICA was carried out See Appendix 1.2.1. for the results. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 127 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.1 Harvester onboard with hand devices The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a Y The fis hery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. See 100 a) 80 a Y The fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. See 100 a) 100 a Y There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. This PI was scored using the Risk-Based Framework (RBF). A SICA workshop was held in Abanqueiro on the 5 th September 2012. See Appendix 1.2. Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs. The SICA was carried out See Appendix 1.2.1. for the results. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 128 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.2 Harvester on foot and onboard with hand devices There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a PI 2.4.2 risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if necessary, that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. See 80 a) b Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/habitats). See 80 b) 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. In terms of clam h arvesting it can be considered that there is a partial strategy to minimise impacts on habitat through the limiting of the gear used within the fishery to hand-gathering using rudimentary tools (e.g. hand rakes, grubber hoes) and bullrakes. The management strategy implemented in the clam fisheries (such as controlled access, daily quotas, number of fishing days per month), although aimed at promoting the sustainable exploitation of the resource, also provides direct protection of the habitat.

As enhanced fisheries several activities that may affect the habitat are put in practice in order to increase productivity, namely: loose of the substrate; protection of seed from predators’ using nets; removal of dead seaweed. In the first case, whenever the terrain becomes compact, the sediment is turned over using both mechanical (tractor) and non mechanical methods (rakes or grubber hoes) in order to favour the settlement of larvae. However this enhancement activity is extremely limited in time and space. For instance, mechanical methods are only used every 5 years. In the case of the nets, these are used in a specific area created for this purpose and comprise four on-growing sites of 20m 2 each. This corresponds to less than 1% of the UC TURF. The removal of dead seaweed is usually carried out every year using a specific gear similar to a scallop dredge with no teeth and with a large mesh size. This action is carried out in the subtidal area and takes around 5-6 days. The impacts that terrain preparation and removal of dead seaweed may cause on habitat are similar to harvesting.

The fisheries under assessment are considered Habitat Modified Fisheries since sediment is added to increase productivity of the harvesting areas. The sediment used is dragged from the Ria Arousa and is deposited only in the areas exploited by harvesters’ onboard fishing vessels, that is, sand is not added in the intertidal zone.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 129 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a PI 2.4.2 risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b Y There is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. The harvesting method used coupled with management measures in place, and the enhancement practices that are carried out, together with the type of habitat (soft sediments) and local hydrodynamics, ensure that no long- term effects of clam harvesting on habitat structure and function occurs. c Y There is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. The regulations and enhancement activities set out in the management plans are effectively enforced. 100 a N There is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types. Although several measures were put in practice to minimize the impacts of clam fisheries (including harvesting and enhancement activities) on habitat, the team agreed that these measures are not integrated and therefore does not constitute a strategy. b N Testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. Clam harvesting and enhancement activities may be easily observed. Although it is believed that habitat restoration occurs within one year, the team agreed that this issue is not met because the precise effects associated with the fishing gears used and the enhancement activities carried out in the clam fisheries were not assessed for the TURF of the UC. c Y There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Observations show successful implementation of restri ctions to hand - gathering only using rudimentary tools and bullrakes. Enforcement of the management measures is effective. Moreover, enhancement activities (including sediment adding) follow the stipulated in the management plan and can be easily observed and monitored by independent observers such as the Biologist of the Area. d N There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. See 100 b) Hall et al ., 1990; Eleftheri ou & Robertson, 1992 Kaiser et al ., 1998a; References Spencer et al ., 1998; Leitao & Gaspar, 2007

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 130 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a PI 2.4.2 risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 131 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.4.3 Harvester on foot and onboard with hand devices Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habi tat types by the fishery PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There is basic understanding of the types and distribution of main habitats in the area of the fishery. See 100 a) b Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impact of gear used in the main habitats, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear. See 100 b) 80 a Y The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. See 100 a) b Y Sufficient data is available to allow the nature of the impact of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of the use of fishing gear. As it was mentioned in 100 a), the habitats affected by the fisheries are well described and quantified. Accordingly we understand much about their potential vulnerability to both fishing disturbance and enhancement activities. Clam fisheries occur only within the confines of TURF area of the UC and the spatial extent of the fisheries is limited by the extent of the habitat where the fisheries take place. The management plan sets out several measures that strictly limit fishing effort and daily quotas that are accomplished by the harvesters due to appropriate enforcement and management controls. Enhancement activities (including sediment adding) are also described in management plans and the areas and timing of the actions developed are known and controlled by the Technical Assistance of the UC. c Y Sufficient data continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). Spatial and temporal footprint of the clam fisheries and enhancement activities is well monitored and recorded on fine spatial and temporal scales. 100 a Y The distribution of habitat types is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitat types. Comprehensive habitat maps for the TURF area of the UC (Fismare, 2008) as well as the distribution of sensitive and protected habitats in Galicia are available (Peña & Bárbara, 2007; Aguilar et al. , 2009). Moreover, the PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 132 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Cartography of Ria Arousa (González, et al ., 2009), the bathimetry of Ria de Arousa (Fismare, 2008) and sediment characterization of Ria Arousa (Rey Salgado, 1993; Vilas et al ., 2005) is also available. b N The physical impact of the gear on the habitat types has been fully quantified. The spatial extent of the fishery is limited by the extent of the habitat and within the fishable area. Local hydrodynamics (e.g. Gómez Gallego, 1971, 1975; Otto, 1975; Fraga, 1981; Fernández de Castillejo & Blanton, 1982; Fernández de Castillejo & Lavin, 1982; Tenore et al. , 1982, 1984; Blanton et al. , 1984; Rosón et al. , 1991, 1995; Figueiras et al. , 2002; De Castro et al. , 2008; González, et al. , 2009) and the habitats affected by the clam fisheries are well described and quantified (Fismare 2008) which enables the potential impact of fishing and enhancement activities to be understood. Effects of clam harvesting using rudimentary tools or hand-dredges (or bullrakes) on the habitat have been studied and quantified by several authors. The impacts reported include sediment re-suspension, changes in sediment granulometry due to the transport by currents of the fine fraction of the sediment (Kaiser et al. , 2001; Hiddink, 2003), sediment fluidization (Kaiser et al. , 2001), release of nutrients and/or contaminants to the water column (Fanning et al. , 1982; Mayer et al. , 1991; Riemann & Hoffmann, 1991; Newell et al. , 1998; Falcão et al. , 2003), formation of trenches and changes in seabed topography (see review Gaspar & Chícharo, 2007 and references therein), and changes on benthic communities (e.g. Spencer, 1996; Kaiser et al. , 2001; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007).

Both, the direct impacts of enhancement activities (addition of sand or coarse sand) and the indirect impacts due to the use of protection nets on habitats were also reported by several authors. The impacts identified comprise changes on the local hydrographic regime (Munroe & Mckinley, 2007), increase of sedimentation (Kaiser et al. , 1996 ; Spencer, 1996; Spencer et al., 1996, 1997; Goulletquer et al. , 1998), increase of the organic contents of the sediment (Bendell-Young, 2006; Spencer et al. , 1997), increase of sediment oxygen uptake that may lead to sediment anoxia and accumulation of free sulphide (see citations in Callier et al. , 2009) and changes on benthic communities (e.g. Kaiser et al. , 1996; Spencer et al. , 1997; Hartstein & Rowden, 2004; Bendell-Young, 2006; Callier et al. , 2007; Toupoint et al. , 2008)

Although it is believed that habitat restoration occurs within one year, the team agreed that this issue is not met because the precise effects associated with the fishing gears used and the enhancement activities carried out in the clam fisheries were not assessed for the TURF of the UC. c N Changes in habitat distributions over time are measured. Although there are some research projects currently being conducted to map habitats, there is no evidence that changes in habitat distributions over time will be measured periodically. References Gómez Gallego, 1971, 1975; Otto, 1975; Fraga, 1981; Fernández de PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 133 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Castillejo & Blanton, 1982; Fanning et al. , 1982; Fernández de Casti llejo & Lavin, 1982; Tenore et al. , 1982, 1984; Blanton et al. , 1984; Mayer et al. , 1991; Riemann & Hoffmann, 1991; Rosón et al. , 1991, 1995; Rey Salgado, 1993; Hartstein & Rowden, 2004; Bendell-Young, 2006; Kaiser et al. , 1996; Spencer, 1996; Spencer et al., 1996, 1997; Goulletquer et al. , 1998; Newell et al. , 1998; Kaiser et al. , 2001; Figueiras et al. , 2002; Falcão et al. , 2003; Hiddink, 2003; Vilas et al ., 2005; Bendell-Young, 2006; Callier et al. , 2007; Gaspar & Chícharo, 2007; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007; Munroe & Mckinley, 2007; Peña & Bárbara, 2007; De Castro et al. , 2008; Fismare, 2008; Toupoint et al. , 2008; Aguilar et al. , 2009; Callier et al. , 2009; González, et al., 2009.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 134 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.1 M. Harvester on foot and onboard with hand devices The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 M ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue (Y/P/ Justification/Rationale N) 60 a NA The fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

b NA The introduced species is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

80 a NA The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. This PI was scored using the Risk-Based Framework (RBF). A SICA workshop was held in Abanqueiro on the 5 th September 2012. See Appendix 1.2.Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs. The SICA was carried out See Appendix 1.2.1. for the results. b NA The introduced species is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

100 a NA There is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely t o disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure or function to a point where

there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

b NA There is evidence that the introduced species is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 135 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.2 M. Harvester on foot and onboard with hand devices There are measures in place to ensure th at the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 M serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are measures in place, if nec essary. See 80 a) b Y The measures take into account the potential impact of the fishery on key elements of the ecosystem. See 80 b ) c Y The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ecosystems). See 80 c )

e Y There are measures that can be put in place in the fishery to prevent progression of further ecosystem impacts from occurring due to the presence of the introduced species . The manila clam Venerupis philippinarum was introduced in Europe at the beginning of the 1970s for culture purposes, initially to France (1972) and later to England, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy (Breber, 1985; Flassch & Leborgne, 1992; Gosling, 2003; Jensen et al. 2004, 2005). This species naturalized in all these countries and therefore is almost impossible to eradicate it. Therefore, the potential ecosystem impacts that could have occurred have probably already taken place and thus, at this stage, the team considered that the introduced species is highly unlikely to disrupt further the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function. Nevertheless, Administration can put in place, if necessary, some measures to minimize the ecosystem effects induced by the manila clam, such as: i) forbidden the sowing of manila clams seed from natural beds or from hatcheries; ii) implement a program to restock or enhance populations of the native species Venerupis decussata ; iii) to produce triploids of manila clams; iv) to overfish manila clam populations in order to favour the populations of endemic species.

Since manila clam is already established, the measures if implemented will contribute, on the one hand, to contain the spread and to control the abundance of the species minimizing its effects on natural systems and biological diversity and, on the other, to restore and protect the native species and ecosystems. The team believes that the implementation of the measures outlined are likely to work but only at long-term and especially if an integrated programme are put in place by the Administration.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 136 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

There are measures in place to ensure th at the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 M serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 80 a Y There is a partial strategy in place, if n ecessary. In terms of clam harvesting, although most of measures in place (Martinez, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) aimed at promoting the sustainable exploitation of the resources it can be considered that there is a partial strategy to minimise impacts on the ecosystem through: i) limiting the number of fishing licenses issued; ii) limiting the gear used to hand-gathering using rudimentary tools (e.g. hand rakes, grubber hoes) and bullrakes; iii) limiting fishing effort; iv) implementing closed areas whenever necessary; v) rotational areas. (Martinez, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)

As enhanced fisheries, several activities that may affect the ecosystem are put in practice in order to increase productivity, namely: seeding of juveniles produced in hatchery; protection of seed from predators’ using nets; loose of the substrate; removal of predators; and removal of dead seaweed. In order to mitigate the impacts of these activities in the ecosystem several measures/practices are in place (Martinez, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012). In the case of clam juveniles seeding several hatchery procedures were adopted to maintain the genetic structure of wild populations. Regarding the use of protecting nets the area where they are used is extremely confined and corresponds to less than 1% of the UC TURF. Concerning substrate turn-over, major works are only carried out every 4-5 years. Punctual terrain preparation may occur every year but is limited in time and space. Removal of predators only takes place in years and on seasons that a high abundance of crabs and whelks is observed. For the removal of the predators bait traps are used. Finally, removal of dead seaweed occurs once each year and takes around 5-6 days and is carried out in the subtidal area using a specific gear that does not penetrate the substrate and that is towed at around 1 knot. According to stakeholders, individuals that are accidentally caught along with dead seaweed are rare (due to the large mesh size used) and are discarded in situ immediately after the gear is brought onboard. In the intertidal dead seaweed is usually removed by hand.

Sand is added to increase productivity the reason why the fisheries under assessment are considered Habitat Modified Fisheries . The strategies that are put in place (Martinez, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) to try to minimise the ecosystem impacts of this practice are to use sediment dragged from Ria Arousa, which is posteriorly deposited in the subtidal area, and to add sand with a minimal interval of 2-3 years. No sediment addition occurs in the intertidal area.

The team agreed that the abovementioned measures can be considered a partial strategy and therefore this issue is met. PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 137 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

There are measures in place to ensure th at the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 M serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b Y The partial strategy takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impact of the fishery on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. Both me asures and enhancement strategies implemented (Martinez , 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) address all potential significant effects of the clam fisheries on the ecosystem. The management of clam harvesting and enhancement activities includes strategies to address sources of potential impact – these are considered above (bycatch, ETP species, habitats) for all relevant ecosystem components. The potential impacts of seed planting on the genetic structure of wild populations are also taking into account. c Y Th e partial strategy is considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/ecosystems). As discussed above for each component, clam harvesting and enhancement activities have no long-term effects on the ecosystem and therefore the team agreed that the partial strategy is likely to work. d Y There is some evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. See 100 d) e N There is a partial str ategy in place in the fishery to prevent progression of futher ecosystem impacts from occurring due to the presence of the introduced species . Currently, Venerupis philippinarum is the species that most contribute for the profitability of the Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa. In order to increase the production of this species, some enhancement activities have been implemented, namely the sowing of seed (management plans – Martinez, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012). Until 3 years ago, sowing was made with manila clam seed from other Rías but nowadays sowing uses seed produced in the hatchery of the UC. This procedure promotes the population of this exotic species, fostering the impacts on the ecosystem induced by it. In view of the above, a condition was set in order to implement a partial strategy aimed at eliminating that practice. 100 a N There is a strategy that consists of a plan , in place. Although several measures and practices adopted to minimize the impacts of clam fisheries (including harvesting and enhancement activities) on the ecosystem, the team agreed that these measures are not integrated and therefore does not constitute a plan.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 138 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

There are measures in place to ensure th at the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 M serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) b N The strategy , which consists of a plan , contains measures to address all main impacts of the introduced species on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place. The plan and measures are based on well-understood functional relationships between the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. This plan provides for the development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the introduced species does not cause serious or irreversible harm. See 100 a).

c N The measures are considered likely to work based on prior exper ience , plausible argument or information directly from the fishery/ecosystems involved. See 100 a).

d Y There is evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully . Although this is not per se an “ecosystem management plan” the team agreed in considering the management measures and enhancement strategies (see Management Plan for Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa; Martinez, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012) adopted to be a partial strategy (see Management Plan for Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ria de Arousa; Martinez, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012), with good evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully since the tight monitoring and control made by the water bailiff, the BC and the Biologist of the Area guarantees that harvesters accomplish with what is stipulated in the management plan. e N There is a strategy that consists of a plan , in place in the fishery to prevent progression of further ecosystem impacts from occurring due to the presence of the introduced species . See 80 a) Breber, 1985; Flassch & Leborgne, 1992; Gosling, 2003; Jensen et al. References 2004, 2005; Martinez, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 139 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 2.5.3 M Harvester on foot and onboard with hand devices PI 2.5.3 M There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Information is adequate to identify the key elements of the ecos ystem (e.g., trophic structure and function, community composition,

productivity pattern and biodiversity). See 80 a)

b Y Main impacts of th e fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have not been investigated in detail . See 80 b) g Y Some data are being collected to detect any progression of the impact of the introduced species on biodiversity See 80 g) 80 a Y Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem There is quite good information on both the abiotic and biotic part of Ria Arousa (see section 3.4.1) which is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. b Y Main impacts of t he fishery on the k ey ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and some have been investigated in detail . Several studies have been carried out to evaluate the impact of harvesting and/or enhancement activities on the ecosystem (see section 3.4.6). Therefore, the main impacts of the fisheries under assessment can be inferred from those investigations. Ecosystem impacts of fishing on macrobenthic communities and/or sediment: e.g. Fanning et al. , 1982; Mayer et al. , 1991; Hall et al. , 1993; Kaiser et al. , 1998a; Spencer, 1996; Spencer et al. , 1998; Kaiser et al. , 2001; Falcão et al. , 2003; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007; Gaspar & Chícharo, 2007.

Ecosystem impacts of enhancement activities - Effects of seeding - Genetic impacts : e.g. Ryman & Laikre, 1991; Bartley et al. , 1995; Reisenbichler & Rubin, 1999; Shikano & Taniguchi, 2003; Arnaud-Haond et al. , 2004; Edmands & Deimler, 2004; Ward, 2006.

Ecosystem impacts of enhancement activities - Effects of seeding and on-growing areas – birds populations: e.g. Goss-Custard 1985; Kaiser et al. , 1998b,c; Whitfield 2003; Caldow et al. , 2007.

Ecosystem impacts of enhancement activities - Effects of protecting PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 140 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

PI 2.5.3 M There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) nets and sediment addition: e.g. Kraeuter & Castagna, 1985; Kaiser et al., 1996; Spencer, 1996; Spencer et al., 1996, 1997; Cigarria & Fernandez, 2000; Beal & Krauss, 2002; Bendell-Young, 2006; Munroe & Mckinley, 2007; Toupoint et al. , 2008; Callier et al. , 2009; Dumbauld et al. , 2009

Ecosystem impacts of enhancement activities - Effects of predators’ removal: e.g. Leavitt & Burt, 2000; Bendell-Young & Ydenberg, 2001; Jamieson et al. 2001; Landry et al. , 2006.

Ecosystem impacts of enhancement activities - Removal of dead seaweed: e.g. Viaroli et al. , 1996, 2006; Rossi, 2000. c Y The main functions of the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. See 100 c)

d Y 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. The clam fisheri es under assessment are relatively benign with no main bycatch species, no retained species and no impact on ETP species. The most relevant impacts are related to habitat due to harvesting and enhancement activities (terrain preparation, sediment addition, anti- predators nets and removal of dead seaweed) and to predators’ removal. Regarding habitat and associated benthic communities, considering the type of sediment where the fisheries take place as well as local hydrodynamics, it is likely that natural restoration occurs within one year (e.g. Spencer, 1996; Kaiser et al., 2001; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007). The removal of predators may induce changes in predator-prey relationships, affecting a number of trophic pathways. However, according to Coo (2010) the species that are removed are abundant within the Ria Arousa and therefore no significant changes on the interactions between species (e.g. trophic relationships) are expected, at least long-term effects. Finally, although seed planting may have an impact on the genetic structure of wild populations, it is believed that the genetic strategy in place is adequate to maintain the genetic pool of natural populations (Gaffney, 2006). By way of conclusion, the team agreed that sufficient information is available to infer the main consequences of clam harvesting and enhancement activities on the key components of the ecosystem. Ecosystem structure and function as well as ecosystem service are not expected to be affected at long-term.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 141 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

PI 2.5.3 M There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) e N Sufficient data continue to b e 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). The data that have been collected is related to the target species which allow designing a management strategy for the fisheries. However, quantitative data related to bycatch and enhancement activities is missing. Bycatch: proportion of bycatch in the catches (number and weight per species); proportion of damaged and dead bycatch individuals; length and sex (whenever possible) of bycatch individuals. Enhancement activities – removal of predators : number, weight, length structure and sex (whenever possible) of the species removed; Enhancement activities – removal of dead seaweed : number, weight, length structure, sex (whenever possible) and proportion of damaged and dead individuals of the species accidently caught; amount of dead seaweed removed. In view of the above, a condition was set aimed at implementing a programme to collect data on the issues mentioned above. f Y The main impacts of the introduced species on the biodiversity are known Several studies regarding the impact of introduced species on biodiversity are available for other areas (e.g. Toba et al ., 1992; Davenport et al. , 2000; Lehane & Davenport, 2002; Pranovi et al ., 2006). Comparative studies on the biology of Venerupis philippinarum and V. decussata (Delgado & Pérez-Camacho, 2007) as well as hybridization between these two species (Hurtado et al. , 2011) were undertaken for Galicia. The impact of the manila clam on grooved carpet shell were reported by several authors (e.g. Auby, 1993; Breber, 2002; Caill-Milly et al., 2003; Jensen et al., 2004; Ricciardi, 2004; Pranovi et al. , 2006; Humphreys et al. , 2007; Garaulet et al. , 2012; Mura et al. , 2012). (see section 3.4.6)

g Y Sufficient information is available on the impacts of the introduced species on these components to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Several studies (e.g. Toba et al ., 1992; Sorokin et al. , 1999; Davenport et al. , 2000; Ackerman et al. , 2001; Bartoli et al. , 2001; Lehane & Davenport, 2002; Sgro et al. , 2005; Pranovi et al ., 2006) on the impact of introduced species in the key ecosystem elements are available for other areas and some have been investigated in detail (see section 3.4.6) which enables to infer the main consequences to the ecosystem. 100 b N Main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated . PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 142 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

PI 2.5.3 M There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) According to CB3.19.1.2 of the MSC certification requirements, the scoring of this issue should be focused on the following issues: “Fisheries should be capable of adapting management to environmental changes as well as managing the effect of the fishery on the ecosystem” and “Monitoring the effects of environmental change on the natural productivity of fisheries should be considered best practice and should include recognition of the increasing importance of climate change”.

The team did not consider that the “main interactions between the fishery and these ecosystem components” can be inferred from existing information, particularly in view of the potential impact of climate change. c Y The impacts of the fis hery on target, Bycatch and ETP species are identified and the main functions of these Components in the ecosystem are understood. There are no main bycatch species or retained species and ETP species (marine fish, birds, reptiles and mammals) are not affected by the fisheries under assessment. The ecological functions of target species are well understood and potential sources of impacts on them from clam fisheries (including enhancement activities) are identified. d N Sufficient information is avai lable on the impacts of the fishery on the Components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. See 80 e)

e N Information is sufficient to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. See 80 e)

f N The main impacts of introduced species on the biodiversity are understood. Although good information exists for other fishing areas, the team agreed that this issue is not met because the precise effects of the introduced species on the key ecosystem elements were not assessed neither for Ria Arousa nor for the TURF of the UC. g N Information is sufficie nt to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts of introduced species . See 100 f).

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 143 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

PI 2.5.3 M There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Fanning et al ., 1982; Goss -Custard 1985; Kraeuter & Castagna, 1985; Mayer et al. , 1991; Ryman & Laikre, 1991; Toba et al ., 1992; Auby, 1993; Hall et al. , 1993; Bartley et al. , 1995; Kaiser et al., 1996; Spencer, 1996; Viaroli et al. , 1996, 2006; Kaiser et al. , 1998a,b,c; Spencer et al. , 1998; Reisenbichler & Rubin, 1999; Sorokin et al. , 1999; Cigarria & Fernandez, 2000; Davenport et al. , 2000; Leavitt & Burt, 2000; Rossi, 2000; Ackerman et al. , 2001; Bartoli et al. , 2001; Bendell-Young & Ydenberg, 2001; Jamieson et al. 2001; Kaiser et al. , 2001; Beal & Krauss, References 2002; Breber, 2002; Lehane & Davenport, 2002; Caill-Milly et al., 2003; Falcão et al. , 2003; Shikano & Taniguchi, 2003; Whitfield 2003; Arnaud- Haond et al. , 2004; Edmands & Deimler, 2004; Jensen et al., 2004; Ricciardi, 2004; Sgro et al. , 2005; Bendell-Young, 2006; Gaffney, 2006; Landry et al. , 2006; Pranovi et al ., 2006; Ward, 2006; Caldow et al. , 2007; Delgado & Pérez-Camacho, 2007; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007; Gaspar & Chícharo, 2007; Humphreys et al. , 2007; Munroe & Mckinley, 2007; Toupoint et al. , 2008; Callier et al. , 2009; Dumbauld et al. , 2009; Coo, 2010; Hurtado et al. , 2011; Garaulet et al. , 2012; Mura et al. , 2012.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 144 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.1. The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2; PI 3.1.1 • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by the customs of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and

• Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The management system is generally consistent wit h local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Spain, before joining the EU, signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982) which includes the legal framework governing international relations relating to the sea both in issues concerning areas of jurisdiction and sovereignty and environmental protection regulations. In addition to this treaty, Spain is also a signatory to the Conventions on the protection of the sea and the Paris Convention, Oslo Convention, London Convention, etc. With its accession to the EU as a full member (1986), the international conventions and treaties affecting protection of the sea and its biodiversity are signed or ratified by the European Commission on behalf of all EU member states and transposed later into their national policies. Since then the EU has signed several conventions intended to establish an international commitment to ensure both sustainable fishing and conservation of marine resources and biodiversity. Many of the directives of these conventions although voluntary are instead integrated into the relevant European policies and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is no exception. Some of these conventions signed by the EU, and Spain as a member, are: the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995), UNEP 2010, CBD 2010, Aichi-Nagoya Targets 2010; etc Additionally, within the setting of the EU, Regulation No. 2371/2002 set a new framework establishing the objective of sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources in a context of sustainable development and taking into account a balance between the social, environmental and economic aspects. The adoption of Regulation (EC) No. 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) inspired by the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO) reinforces this target of sustainability by giving some of these principles the force of law. Very recently, the EU has also signed other conventions relating to the

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 145 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2; PI 3.1.1 • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by the customs of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and

• Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) sustainability of the sea and conservation of its resources and biodiversity under criteria of environmental, economic and social sustainability (Rio Summit +20). Conventions that are in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The condition of Spain's membership of the EU involves the adaptation of its Fisheries Policy to the legal framework established by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as well as the Fisheries Laws of the Autonomous Communities concerned, as is the case of Galicia. The management system that guides all fisheries in Galicia meets the legal requirements and long-term objectives set by EU Regulation No. 850/98 as basis document that has guided the drafting of the fisheries laws of both the Government of Spain (Law 3/2001) and the Autonomous government of Galicia (Law 11/2008 of 3 rd December) as amended by Law 6/2009 of 11 December (Law 6/2009). A Regulation applicable to the regulation of fishing gear; species; minimum size; restrictions on fishing; etc. based on the precautionary principle and target of sustainable fisheries. Under it, the legal and judicial framework is broadly consistent with national and international laws and standards concerning sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The precautionary approach in the case of the fishery under assessment is inherent in the management system. b Y The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system. See 100 b) c Y Alt hough the management authority or fishery may be subject to continuing court challenges, it does not demonstrate disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability of the fishery. See 100 c) d Y The management system has a mechanism to generally respect the legal rights created explicitly or established by the customs of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 146 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2; PI 3.1.1 • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by the customs of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and

• Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) of MSC Principles 1 a nd 2.

See 100 d) 80 b Y The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery. See 100 b) c Y The management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion to binding judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. See 100 c) d Y The management system has a mechanism to observe the legal r ights created explicitly or established by the customs of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. See 100 d) 100 b Y The management system incorporates or subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective . The resolution of conflicts between and the Administration are resolved through dialogue and direct negotiations. Failing that, through claims by those affected against the Administration and appeals, both administratively and, if rejected, through the court system at the various instances that prove necessary for the resolution of disputes between the parties (Supreme Court of Justice of Galicia). The management system has transparent and explicit mechanisms for dispute resolution and which are appropriate to the fishery's context. They have been tested and shown to be effective. c Y The man agement system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements binding judicial decisions arising from legal

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 147 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2; PI 3.1.1 • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by the customs of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and

• Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) challenges.

The management system complies in a timely fashion with the legal decisions arising from legal disputes and is proactive in avoiding them. d Y The management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by the customs of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. In the particular case of the fishery under assessment, shell -fishermen's rights are explicit and legally protected by the legal codification system (indefinite licenses renewable annually) that governs formal access to the fishery. The limit on the number of PERMEX per fishery is set by the HP’s of each fishery and governed by Decree 114/2007 of May 31, amendment of Decree 425/1993 of December 17; they govern the harvesting permit to carry out fishing and shellfish-harvesting activity with all the guarantees. See subsection 3.5.8. There is an explicit legal framework that favours the implementation of a management system which is highly likely to contribute to the sustainable exploitation of the fishery. In this regard, the operational framework is consistent with the laws and legal framework at the local, national and international levels. Regulation (EC) No. 850/98: http://www.maec.es/fr/MenuPpal/EspanayUE/Politicascomunitarias/Documents/b a30411417e44449ad39bdce5416540freglamento4.pdf Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 ( http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:358:0059:0080:ES:PDF ) Regulation (EC) No. 1109/2006 ( http://www.boe.es/doue/2006/223/L00001- References 00044.pdf ) Spanish Constitution: (http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/constitucion.t8.html ) Fisheries Law of Galicia 6/2009 of 11 th December (http://www.fedpemar.es/doga15122009.pdf ) Fisheries Law of Spain 3/2001 (http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/l3-2001.html )

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 148 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2; PI 3.1.1 • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by the customs of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and

• Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) Penalty system law 11/2008 of 3 rd December (Regional Government of Galicia): ( http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ga-l11-2008.t14.html ) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (http://www.fao.org/fishery/code/es ) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 149 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultat ion processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood. See 100 a) b Y The management system includes consultation processes that obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. See 100 b) 80 a Y Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. See 100 a) b Y The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. See 100 b) c Y The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. See 100 c) 100 a Y Organisations and individuals involv ed in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. All organisations, institutions and individuals involved in the managem ent system are easily identifiable and defined explicitly. The main groups recognized with interests in the fishery are framed in the classification of groups belonging to the Public Administration, both autonomous administration and state, and private entities and physical persons with economic, social, environmental, and scientific interests in the fishery (the Cooperative; fishermen’s associations; producer organizations; marketing companies; etc). There is a whole series of public institutions and organs linked to the Autonomous Government like the CMRM and the DXIDP with specific roles, functions and responsibilities that act in an interrelated manner and provide oversight as to the sustainability of the fishery in standards, PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 150 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The management system has effective consultat ion processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) administrative, surveillanc e, and control terms ( Servicio de Guardacostas e Inspección Pesquera, Guardapescas del Punto de Control ); sea security (Salvamento Marítimo ), work safety ( Capitanía Marítima ), as well as biological monitoring (BC; Zone Biologists; Xefatura Territorial , CIMA), sanitary aspects of quality of waters and food safety which includes monitoring in terms of microbiology and bio-toxins in bivalve molluscs (INTECMAR), meteorological forecasts (MeteoGalicia), and so forth. For the sectoral part, there are 12 fishermen associations ( Cofradías ) in the Ría de Arousa with their respective groupings of shellfish harvesters and a Cooperative, la Sociedad Cooperativa Gallega Ría de Arousa . b Y The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used . Decree 423/1993 (17 th December) on consolidation of the current regulations on shell fishing, as amended by Decree 237/2002 (11 th July), makes explicit the consultative character with regard to formulation of the MP. The technical and socioeconomic formulation of the MP requires a highly participatory system of consultation between all stakeholders: BC; on foot and onboard shellfish harvesters; Steering Committee of the Cooperative; checkpoint, Area Biologist, Territorial Authority, the DXIDP and CMRM. The process is transparent and incorporates both scientific and local knowledge. All parties involved participate in the consultative processes regularly. See section 3.5 subsections 3.5.3 y 3.5.4. c Y The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. The dynamic created by the design of the HP promotes this flow of information and constant consultation among all the actors directly participating in the fishery. This process causes significant involvement of all stakeholders. The consultation process is open and offers the incentive for all interested parties to participate. The design of the Management Plans has explicit mechanisms (participatory and consultative process) that provide an incentive for cooperation between the parties involved in the management system. See section 3.5 subsections 3.5.3 y 3.5.4. References PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 151 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The management system has effective consultat ion processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 152 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long -term o bjectives to guide decision -making PI 3.1.3 that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Long -term objectives to guide decision -making, consistent with the MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are implicit within management policy See 80 a) 80 a Y Clear long -term objectives that guide decision -making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach are explicit within management policy. The fishery's long term objectives are clearly defined in the CMRM management policy. They guide decision-making and are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria. The precautionary approach is inherent in the management policy and is applied consistently and with the information available during the design of the fishery's MP. The fishery´s long term, cannot be applied to this fishery because of the biological characteristics of the species under assessment.. The bivalves to be assessed are highly short- lived species that grow rapidly and have high annual fishing variability which makes it impossible to implement long term management plans. The management plans are a year in duration and are subject to continuous revision. The precautionary approach is systematically used. Furthermore, the HP is flexible to be annualy modified. In addition, complementary annual measures that are consistent with the principles and criteria of the MSC can be taken. The Principle of Precaution is applied in a more conservative mode. See subsection 3.5.6 and 3.5.9. 100 a N Clear long -term objectives that guide decision -making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy. The long -term goals are clearly defined in the CMRM management policy but are not applicable to the management plans of the fishery under assessment given the characteristics of the fishery, but are neither required nor explicit in the fishery under assessment. See subsection 3.5.6 and 3.5.9. Fisheries Law of Galicia 6/2009 of 11 th December (http://www.fedpemar.es/doga15122009.pdf ) Fisheries Law of Spain 3/2001 (http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/l3-2001.html ) References Penalty system law 11/2008 of 3 rd December (Regional Government of Galicia): ( http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/ga-l11-2008.t14.html ) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (http://www.fao.org/fishery/code/es ) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 153 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The management policy has clear long -term o bjectives to guide decision -making PI 3.1.3 that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 154 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 3.1.4 The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable PI 3.1.4 fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y See 80 a) 80 a Y 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. The fishery has subsidies or positive incentives. The CMRM annually publishes public calls for assistance to projects for the improvement of the sustainability of the fishery. The Cooperative is present on these occasions and assigns those funds for fishery sustainability objectives. Additionally, there are other incentives offered by the CMRM that open up the opportunity to the Cooperativa some aspect of the fishery (monitoring, scientific research on the resource; clean-up funds; trading, etc). The management system provides incentives (social, economic and environmental) that are consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 and ensures that there are no explicit incentives that are inappropriate and can lead to over-harvesting of resources. See section 3.5 subsection 3.5.6 100 a N 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 they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. The Cooperative invests its own funds in the fishery to achieve any improvements of same. The Cooperative’s profits are invested in the fishery with the aim of making it sustainable. The Cooperative aids (economically and without public subsidies) the BC, the Presidency; 4 guards; 1 hatchery technician, and also finances the salaries of staff who participate in fishery preparation work as well as the shellfish harvesters. The Cooperative, through the Executive Council, establishes controls (accountability to the Assembly) on the correct application of these economic and social incentives. These incentives are intended to contribute to a sustainable use and avoid overexploitation. Additionally, all participants in the fishery as members of the cooperative, contributed with good practices and ensure the sustainability of the fishery. The management system provides incentives that are explicit and consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The incentives are not subject, under the management policy, to regular review in the management system. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 155 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable PI 3.1.4 fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N)

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 156 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.1 The fishery has clear, s pecific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y 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. See 80 a) 80 a Y 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. The long -term objectives are provided for in the Fisheries Law of Galicia but not explicit in the management system of the fishery under assessment. The fishery does not justify having long-term objectives because the management of this species does not allow it, as stated in Principle 1.1.1. MPs are valid for one year and constitute a management strategy with short-term objectives. An annual follow-up of the fishery (HP) is the specification for this type of fishery because it adapts to the biological requirements (short life; rapid growth; etc) of same. See subsection 3.5.6 100 a N 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. No explicit long -term objectives are provided for in the fishery's specific management system. The long-term objectives are neither well-designed nor measurable. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 157 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.2 The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y There are some decision -making processes in place that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. See 80 a) b Y Decision -making processes respond to serious issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions. See 80 b) 80 a Y Decision -making processes are established that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. The decision -making process in the fishery is close to a co -management model for both the design of HP’s and daily decision-making. HP’s are designed to establish measures and strategies aimed toward the objectives of fishery sustainability. All participants are listed in subsection 3.5.2. The model of consultation between all the participants contributes to define a HP with measures and strategies aimed at achieving fishery sustainability. See subsection 3.5.9. Decision-making processes have been established that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery's specific objectives. This process is well established. b Y Decision -making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. The HP is designed to answer the most relevant questions that can threaten the fishery’s sustainability. There is constant follow-up of the latter. All members participating in the design of the HP are in an open and permanent process of consultation and have the capacity to react and respond to critical situations. See subsections 3.5.4 and 3.5.9. The decision-making process enables a transparent and effective response to important or serious issues that may be identified in the monitoring, research or assessment of the fishery. c Y Decision -making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. The HP is designed with the best data available and based on this resource management measures are developed. Where full data about the fishery is lacking, the Principle of Precaution is applied systematically and in a very conservative fashion to the fishery management measures: measuring rods; PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 158 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) daily quotas in kgs; maximum days of fishing annually; maximum number of harvesters; zone rotation; etc. The precautionary approach is inherent in the decision-making process and is applied. The decision-making process is based on the best information available. See section 3.5 subsections 3.5.9. d Y Explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. The HP s are reviewed annually. This peculiarity allows for the insertion of new data emerging from the research and follow-up of the activity and to put forward new fishery management recommendations. The recommendations arising from the assessment, monitoring and scientific research processes are explained. 100 b N Decision -making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. The decision -making process does not respond to all the issues of a scientific nature relating to the fishery, above all some of the issues outlined in Principle 1. d N Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. The report that is disseminated among the stakeholders does not contain recommendations associated with scientific research, as evidenced in Principle 1. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 159 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.3 Moni toring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist and are implemented in the fishery under assessment and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. See 80 a) b Y Sanctions to deal with non -compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied. Ver 80 b) c Y Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance for the effective management of the fishery. Ver 80 c)

80 a Y A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemente d in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated its ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. The MP clearly sets out the water bailiff's functions (Checkpoint): conduct the daily monitoring of harvesting as per what is stipulated for checkpoints; perform internal and external monitoring of the resource and apply penalties if necessary. These control measures are reinforced with the support of partners of the Cooperative who act as volunteers for surveillance. See subsection 3.5.7 and 3.5.9. The fishery has a monitoring and control system that has been implemented and which demonstrates its capacity to enforce the fishery's measures and strategies. b Y Sanctions to deal with non -compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. Sanctions are dissuasive and consistently applied. c Y Some evidence exists which demonstrates fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance for the effective management of the fishery. The cooperative participation system in this fosters and provides incentive for a greater collaboration and compliance with the standards and measures emanating from the HP, in works involving surveillance and follow-up, and contribution of relevant information. See subsections 3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.6, and 3.5.9.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 160 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Moni toring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) d Y There is no evidence of systematic non -compliance.

The monitoring and control system is geared fundamentally to prevent poaching and be effective. The high collaboration of the members of the Cooperative strengthens these controls. Internally, the performance of the members of the fishery is very high. 100 a Y A comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery under assessment and has demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. There is a comprehensive control and surveillance system as set out in Principle 1. b Y Sanc tions to deal with non -compliance exist, are consistently applied and demonstrably provide effective deterrence. There are sanctions; they are consistent and prove their effectiveness. Poaching and illegal fishing are carefully avoided due to the significant fishery surveillance and control system. c Y There is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance for the effective management of the fishery. The communitarian nature of the Cooperative, its almost 30 years of operation and internal cohesiveness provide high credibility and confidence that the shellfish harvesters comply with and actively collaborate in fishery management, See subsections 3.5.2 and 3.5.8. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 161 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y Research is undertaken, as required, to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. See 80 a) b Y Research results are available to interested parties. See 80 b) 80 a Y A research plan provides the managemen t system with a strategic approach to research, in addition to reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. There is a clear research plan (information on daily catches; annual us age zones; analysis of data by the BC; measuring stick sample; on site sampling (at least two for the year); assessment of catches and by area, etc that allows the quantity of the species to be inferred by assessment through the CPUE. In the sense of the research efforts, highlight that the Cooperative itself has requested, through public call from CMRM the contracting of a Project executed by the FISMARE consultancy aimed at improving the mapping of the shellfish banks of the administrative autorization that will contribute to improving the management of the fishery (2007). Therefore, the research plans appear adequate and are consistent with the objectives of Principle 1 and 2 of the MSC. See section 3.5 subsections 3.5.8 b Y Research results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion. The results of the research plans provided by BC , CMRM, INTECMAR, CIMA, and other related institutions, are reported and disseminated to the interested parties in a timely manner.The research results are disseminated in a timely manner to stakeholders who have access to them within an adequate time. See Subsection 3.5.3 100 a N A comprehensive research plan provides the management system with a coherent and strategic approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, in addition to reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. There is no comprehensive research plan from the scientific point of view of all and each of the aspects that can affect a fishery and its management system. Scientific research is fragmented (but is sufficient and consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2) and does not provide full information regarding the status of the stock, as has been stated in Principle 1.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 162 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

b N Researc h plan and results are disseminated to all interested parties in a timely fashion and are widely and publicly available . A comprehensive research plan for the fishery is lacking. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 163 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Evaluation Table: PI 3.2.5 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery - PI 3.2.5 specific management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Met? SG Issue Justification/Rationale (Y/N) 60 a Y The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate some parts of the management system. See 100 a)

b Y The fishery -specific management system is subject to occasional internal review. See 80 b) 80 a Y The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system See 100 a) b Y The fishery -specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. The specific management system is subject by law to regular annua l internal reviews and occasional external reviews. See Mapping of Shellfish Banks of FISMARE (2008). This MPs are reviewed by the BC and the fishermen of the Cooperative together with the CMRM technicians before they are approved. Prior to creation of HPs, the CMRM publishes an Order annually (Order of 23 December/2011) where the authorizations in specific production zones, days of activity, likely harvesting times, control points, etc are set out. This Order notes the conditions needed for the HP of the following year so that once approved and implemented it guarantees sustainable harvesting of the resource. During this entire process, prior, during, and subsequent to the drafting of the HP, there is an open channel of mutual communication and consultation between the President of the Cooperative, the BC and the CMRM with its experts (zone biologists). 100 a Y The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system. There are mechanisms to evaluate all measurable parts of the management system with existing administrative, technical and scientific resources. b N The fishery -specific management system is subject to regular internal and external review. The specific management system is not subject to regular external review. Currently, the costs of the review are too high to accomplish this objective. References

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 164 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 165 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs

Appendix 1.2.1 Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)

Table 3 Principel 1 SICA Scoring Template for Target Species - Cerastoderma edule Performance Indicator Risk -causing Spatial scale of Temporal scale of Intensity of Relevant Consequence MSC activities activity activity activity subcomponents score Score

Target Species Fishing activities 6 (higher than 4 (100 -200 days of 4 (since it is an Population size Outcome from all fisheries 60%) fishing) enhanced fishery including: and habitat Reproductive change fishery, it 2 80 • Direct capacity was considered capture Age/size/sex that detectable evidence of structure

activity occurs reasonably often Geographic at broad spatial (source: (source: range www.pescadegalicia.com) www.pescadegalicia.com) scale ) Rationale: Stakeholder considered that the most significant combination of activity -component -subcomponent for this PI was the impact of clam harvesting on the reproductive capacity of Cerastoderma edule . All stakeholders present in the RBF meeting agreed that

this impact is moderate, leading to a SICA score of 2, which converts to an MSC score of 80. The reasons pointed out by stakeholders (agreeded with the team) to reach this score were as follows: 1) Fast-growing and short lived species. 2) Spawning once before attaining the MLS. 3) Spawning period is relatively short. 4) Fecundity increases exponentially with shell length. 5) Cockle populations are subject to an intensive fishing effort. 6) A high proportion of individuals with a size near the MLS are removed by the fishery every year.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 166 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Table 4 Principle 1 SICA Scoring Template for Target Species – Venerupis corrugata Performance Indicator Risk -causing Spatial scale of Temporal scale of Intensity of Relevant Consequence MSC activities activity activity activity subcomponents score Score

Target Species Fishing activities 6 (h igher than 4 (100 -200 days of 4 (since it is an Population size Outcome from all fisheries 60%) fishing) enhanced fishery including: and habitat Reproductive change fishery, it 2 80 • Direct capacity was considered capture Age/size/sex that detectable evidence of structure

activity occurs reasonably often Geographic at broad spatial (source: (source: range www.pescadegalicia.com) www.pescadegalicia.com) scale ) Rationale: Stakeholder considered that the most significant combination of activity -component -subcomponent for this PI was the impact of clam harvesting on the reproductive capacity of Venerupis corrugata . All stakeholders present in the RBF meeting agreed

that this impact is moderate, leading to a SICA score of 2, which converts to an MSC score of 80. The reasons pointed out by stakeholders to reach this score were as follows: 1) Fast-growing and short lived species. 2) Spawning once before attaining the MLS. 3) Spawning period is relatively short. 4) Fecundity increases exponentially with shell length. 5) Pullet carpet shell populations are subject to an intensive fishing effort. 6) A high proportion of individuals with a size near the MLS are removed by the fishery every year.

The team fully agreed with this assessment done by stakeholders.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 167 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Table 5 Principle 1 SICA Scoring Template for Target Species – Venerupis decussata Performance Indicator Risk -causing Spatial scale of Temporal scale of Intensity of Relevant Consequence MSC activities activity activity activity subcomponents score Score

Target Species Fishing activities 6 (higher than 4 (100 -200 days of 4 (since it is an Population size Outcome from all fisheries 60%) fishing) enhanced fishery including: and habitat Reproductive change fishery, it 2 80 • Direct capacity was considered capture Age/size/sex that detectable evidence of structure

activity occurs reasonably often Geographic at broad spatial (source: (source: range www.pescadegalicia.com) www.pescadegalicia.com) scale ) Rationale: Stakeholder considered that t he most significant combination of activity -component -subcomponent for this PI was the impact of clam harvesting on the reproductive capacity of Venerupis decussata . All stakeholders present in the RBF meeting agreed

that this impact is moderate, leading to a SICA score of 2, which converts to an MSC score of 80. The reasons pointed out by stakeholders to reach this score were as follows: 1) Fast-growing and short lived species. 2) Spawning once before attaining the MLS. 3) Spawning period is relatively short. 4) Fecundity increases exponentially with shell length.. 5) Although the spatial scale of the activity is lower when compared with the spatial scale for the other target species, the pullet carpet shell populations are subject to an intensive fishing effort. 6) A high proportion of individuals with a size near the MLS are removed by the fishery every year.

The team fully agreed with this assessment done by stakeholders.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 168 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Table 6 Principle 1 SICA Scoring Template for Target Species – Venerupis philippinarum Performance Indicator Risk -causing Spatial scale of Temporal scale of Intensity of Relevant Consequence MSC activities activity activity activity subcomponents score Score

Target Species Fishing activities 6 (higher than 4 (100 -200 days of 4 (since it is an Population size Outcome from all fisheries 60%) fishing) enhanced fishery including: and habitat Reproductive change fishery, it • Direct capacity was considered capture Age/size/sex that detectable 2 80 evidence of structure

activity occurs reasonably often Geographic at broad spatial (source: (source: range www.pescadegalicia.com) www.pescadegalicia.com) scale ) Rationale: Stakeholder considered that the most significant combination of activity -componen t-subcomponent for this PI was the impact of clam harvesting on the size structure of Venerupis philippinarum . All stakeholders present in the RBF meeting agreed that this

impact is moderate, leading to a SICA score of 2, which converts to an MSC score of 80. The reason pointed out by stakeholders to reach this score were as follows: 1) Along with cockles the manila clam is the most abundant species in Ria Arousa. 2) Fast-growing and short lived species. 3) Spawning at least once before attaining the MLS. 4) Long spawning period. 5) High reproductive potential and a high growth rate. These characteristics minimize the impact of the fishery on the fecundity of species. 6) Manila clam is subject to an intensive fishing effort. 7) A high proportion of individuals with MLS are removed by the fishery every year. The team fully agreed with this assessment done by stakeholders.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 169 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Table 7 Principle 2 SICA Scoring Template for Bycatch Species Performance Indicator Risk -causing Spatial scale Temporal Intensity of activity Relevant Consequence MSC activities of activity scale of subcomponents score Score activity

Bycatch Species Outcome Fishing activities 4 (31 -45%) 3 (1 -100 days 2 (activity occurs Population size from all fisheries of fishing) rarely or in few

including: restricted locations Reproductive Netted dog whelk and evidence of • Direct capture capacity Nassarius reticulatus activity even on Age/size/sex these scales is rare) 1 100 structure

(source: e.g. (source: e.g. Geographic Martinez, 2010, Martinez, 2010, 2011, 2012) 2011, 2012) range Rationale: Stakeholder considered that the most significant combination of activity -component -subcomponent for this PI was the impact of clam harvesting on size structure of the two most represented bycatch species ( Nassarius reticulatus and

Liocarcinus spp.). All stakeholders present in the RBF meeting agreed that this impact was negligible, leading to a SICA score of 1, which converts to an MSC score of 100. The reason pointed out by stakeholders to reach this score were as follows: 1) The proportion of bycatch in the catches is extremely low not surpassing 5%. 2) Bycatch individuals are discarded in situ immediately after being brought onboard or after sorting. 3) Almost all of bycatch individuals are discarded alive and therefore their survival rate is expected to be almost 100%. 4) The impact, although not significant, may be higher during the reproductive period or during molting. 5) Nassarius reticulatus is extremely abundant in Ria Arousa. 6) Indirect mortality due to bullraking is unlikely due to way the gear is operated.

The team fully agreed with this assessment done by stakeholders.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 170 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Table 8 Principle 2 SICA Scoring Template for Bycatch Species Performance Indicato r Risk -causing Spatial scale Temporal Intensity of activity Relevant Consequence MSC activities of activity scale of subcomponents score Score activity

Bycatch Species Outcome Fishing activities 4 (31 -45%) 3 (1 -100 days 2 (activity occurs Population size from all fisheries of fishing) rarely or in few

including: restricted locations Reproductive Swimming crab and evidence of • Direct capture capacity Liocarcinus spp. activity even on Age/size/sex these scales is rare) 1 100 structure

(source: e.g. (source: e.g. Geographic Martinez, 2010, Martinez, 2010, 2011, 2012) 2011, 2012) range Rationale: Stakeholder considered that the most significant combination of activity -component -subcomponent for this PI was the impact of clam harvesting on size structure of the two most represented bycatch species ( Nassarius reticulatus and

Liocarcinus spp.). All stakeholders present in the RBF meeting agreed that this impact was negligible, leading to a SICA score of 1, which converts to an MSC score of 100. The reason pointed out by stakeholders to reach this score were as follows: 1) The proportion of bycatch in the catches is extremely low not surpassing 5%. 2) Bycatch individuals are discarded in situ immediately after being brought onboard or after sorting. 3) Almost all of bycatch individuals are discarded alive and therefore their survival rate is expected to be almost 100%. 4) The impact, although not significant, may be higher during the reproductive period or during molting. 5) Liocarcinus spp. is extremely abundant in Ria Arousa. 6) Indirect mortality due to bullraking is unlikely due to way the gear is operated.

The team fully agreed with this assessment done by stakeholders.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 171 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Table 9 Principle 2 SICA Scoring Template for Habitats (harvester on foot with and devices) Performance Indicator Risk -causing Spatial scale Temporal Intensity of activity Relevant Consequence MSC activities of activity scale of subcomponents score Score activity Habitats Outcome • Sediment 2 (1 -15%) 3 (1 -100 days 2 (activity occurs of fishing) rarely or in few loosen Habitat types restricted locations Soft bottoms in the and evidence of

intertidal area. activity even on (source: e.g. (source: e.g. these scales is rare) Habitat structure Martinez, 2010, 1 100 Martinez, 2010, and function 2011, 2012) 2011, 2012) Rationale: Of the clam fisheries activities (including harvesting and enhancement activities) that affect the habitat in the intertidal zone, stakeholders considered that the most significant combination of activity-component-subcomponent for this PI was

the loosen of sediment on habitat structure and function. All stakeholders present in the RBF meeting agreed that this impact was negligible, leading to a SICA consequence score of 1, which converts to an MSC score of 100. The reasons pointed out by stakeholders to reach this score were as follows: 1) The sediment on the intertidal area of the TURF of the UC is mainly sand. 2) The loosen of sediment only affects a small area of the intertidal zone. 3) Local hydrodynamics favours the rapid recovery of sediment and benthic communities. 4) The effects of this enhancement activity on small areas with dynamic habitats, such as sandy sediments, are quickly diluted through the migration of benthos from surrounding areas or through sediment redistribution

The team fully agreed with this assessment done by stakeholders. The potential ecosystem impacts that this enhancement activity may provoke in the ecosystem are described in section “3.4.6. Ecosystem impacts”. Nevertheless, taking into consideration that both the effects of gear impact in dynamic habitats are quickly diluted (Hall et al. , 1990; Eleftheriou & Robertson, 1992) and that sandy and muddy communities of dynamic PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 172 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

habitats have a high ca pacity to recover in this habitats (e.g. Kaiser et al. , 1998a; Spencer et al. , 1998; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007), only short-medium term effects of clam harvesting on benthic communities are expected.

Table 10 Principle 2 SICA Scoring Template for Habitats (onboard with hand devices) Performance Indicator Risk -causing Spatial Temporal Intensity of activity Relevant Consequence MSC activities scale of scale of subcomponents score Score activity activity Habitats Outcome • Sand addition 2 (1 -15%) 3 (1 -100 2 (activity occurs days of rarely or in few Habitat types fishing) restricted locations Soft bottoms in the and evidence of subtidal area. activity even on Habitat (source: e.g. these scales is rare) Martinez, 2010, (source: e.g. structure and 2 80 2011, 2012) Martinez, 2010, function 2011, 2012) Rationale: Of the clam fisheries activities (including harvesting and enhancement activities) that affect the habitat in the intertidal zone, stakeholders considered that the most significant combination of activity-component-subcomponent

for this PI was sand addition on habitat structure and function. All stakeholders present in the RBF meeting agreed that this impact is moderate, leading to a SICA consequence score of 2, which converts to an MSC score of 80. The reasons pointed out by stakeholders to reach this score were as follows: 1) The sediment on the subtidal area of the TURF of the UC is mainly mud. 2) The sediment that is added (sand) is different to the natural sediment of the zone. 3) The addition of sand only affects a small area of the subtidal zone of the TURF of UC.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 173 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

4) Although local hydrodynamics favours the sediment redistribution and the recovery of benthic communities, it is expected that the time needed to restore the natural system is higher than in the intertidal area. 5) The footprint of the clam fisheries carried out by the harvesters of the UC is extremely low within Ria Arousa. 6) The mud habitat affected by the addition of sand is probably less than 1% of the mud habitat of Ria Arousa.

The team fully agreed with this assessment done by stakeholders.

The potential ecosystem impacts that this enhancement activity may provoke in the ecosystem are described in section “ 3.4.6. Ecosystem impacts”. Nevertheless, taking into consideration that both the effects of gear impact in dynamic habitats are quickly diluted (Hall et al. , 1990; Eleftheriou & Robertson, 1992) and that sandy and muddy communities of dynamic habitats have a high capacity to recover in this habitats (e.g. Kaiser et al. , 1998a; Spencer et al. , 1998; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007), only short-medium term effects of clam harvesting on benthic communities are expected.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 174 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Table 11 Principle 2 SICA Scoring Template for ecosystem (harvester on foot with hand devices) Performance Indicator Risk -causing Spatial scale Temporal Intensity of activity Relevant Consequence MSC activities of activity scale of subcomponents score Score activity Ecosystem Outcome • Predators 6 (highe r 4 (100 -200 4 (since it is an Species

than 60%) days of enhanced fishery composition removal fishing) and habitat change Functional Intertidal area fishery, it was group 2 80 considered that composition detectable evidence of activity occurs Distribution of

(source: e.g. (source: e.g. reasonably often at the community Martinez, 2010, Martinez, 2010, broad spatial scale ) 2011, 2012) 2011, 2012) Trophic

size/structure Rationale: Stakeholder considered that the most significant combination of activ ity -component -subcomponent for this PI was the impact of predators’ removal on the functional group composition . All stakeholders present in the RBF meeting agreed that

this impact is moderate, leading to a SICA score of 2, which converts to an MSC score of 80. The reasons pointed out by stakeholders to reach this score were as follows: Little information is available on this issue and therefore it was decided to adopt the precautionary principle to assess this PI. 1) The main species that may be affected is the netted dog whelk ( Nassarius reticulatus ). Some crabs may also be removed from the fishery. According to some stakeholders these species (or groups) are abundant within Ria Arousa. 2) Removal of predators may lead to changes on the biomass of functional groups within the TURF of the UC. 3) Chronic removal of predators can alter the functional composition of benthic invertebrate communities of the TURF of the UC. 4) The removal of predators may lead to cascade effects on the ecosystem due to the alteration of a number of trophic pathways. 5) Taking into consideration the low footprint of fisheries no large scale shifts in the functional composition of benthic

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 175 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

communities are expected and therefore effects on the functioning of Ria Arousa ecosystems are unlikely to oc cur.

The team fully agreed with this assessment done by stakeholders.The potential ecosystem impacts that this enhancement activity may provoke in the ecosystem are described in section “ 3.4.6. Ecosystem impacts”

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 176 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Table 12 Principle 2 SICA Scoring Template for ecosystem (onboard with hand devices) Performance Indicator Risk -causing Spatial scale Temporal Intensity of activity Relevant Consequence MSC activities of activity scale of subcomponents score Score activity Ecosystem Ou tcome • Predators 6 (higher 4 (100 -200 4 (since it is an Species

than 60%) days of enhanced fishery composition removal fishing) and habitat change Functional Subtidal area fishery, it was group 2 80 considered that composition detectable evidence of activity occurs Distribution of

(source: e.g. (source: e.g. reasonably often at the community Martinez, 2010, Martinez, 2010, broad spatial scale ) 2011, 2012) 2011, 2012) Trophic

size/structure Rationale: Stakeholder conside red that the most significant combination of activity-component -subcomponent for this PI was the impact of predators’ removal on the functional group composition . All stakeholders present in the RBF meeting agreed that

this impact is moderate, leading to a SICA score of 2, which converts to an MSC score of 80. The reasons pointed out by stakeholders to reach this score were as follows: 1) Little information is available on this issue and therefore it was decided to adopt the precautionary principle to assess this PI. 2) The main species that may be affected is the netted dog whelk ( Nassarius reticulatus ). Some crabs may also be removed from the fishery. According to some stakeholders these species (or groups) are abundant within Ria Arousa. 3) Removal of predators may lead to changes on the biomass of functional groups within the TURF of the UC. 4) Chronic removal of predators can alter the functional composition of benthic invertebrate communities of the TURF of the UC. 5) Removal of predators may lead to cascade effects on the ecosystem due to the alteration of trophic pathways.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 177 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

6) Taking into consideration the low footprint of fisheries no large scale shifts in the functional composition of benthic communities are expected and therefore effects on the functioning of Ria Arousa ecosystems are unlikely to occur.

The team fully agreed with this assessment done by stakeholders.

The potential ecosystem impacts that this enhancement activity may provoke in the ecosystem are described in section “3.4.6. Ecosystem impacts”

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 178 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Appendix 1.2.2 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA):

PSA for Target species:

Cerastoderma edule Considering the life history attributes of Cerastoderma edule it was concluded that this species has a high productivity. Susceptibility to fishing pressure was scored as high for attributes 1 and 2, respectively, and low for the remaining two attributes. Concerning areal overlap susceptibility was considered high due to the fact that fishing effort overlap more than 30% with the species distribution of the stock, whereas susceptibility for the vertical overlap attribute was classified as high since the technical characteristics of the gear used can dig clams out of sediment until the maximum burrowing depth of the species. The harvest methods used are highly selective and therefore susceptibility for the selectivity attribute was low.

The team decided to used the highest default score (3) for post-capture mortality due to the high score allocated for selectivity, a large portion of animals undersized individuals and bycatch are returned alive and survive the encounter (please see MSC Certification Requirements v1).

This led to an overall score for the PSA of 1.93 which corresponds to a MSC score of 96.0, higher than the score attained with SICA, reaching a final score of 96 for PI 1.1.1.

Productivity Seven attributes of the life history of Cerastoderma edule were considered and scored to achieve productivity. The scores and rationale for each attribute are shown in the following Table. Productivity score. Val ue Score Reference Average age at maturity Around 18 months 1 Tyler -Walters, 2007 Average maximum age Around 2 -4 years 1 Tyler -Walters, 2007 Fecundity Between 500000 and 8x10 6 oocytes 1 Garcia -Martin et al ., per female (SL of 25 and 38 mm, 2007 respectively) Average maximum size 56 mm SL 1 Macedo et al. , 1999 Average size at maturity 12 -15mm SL 1 Tyler -Walters, 2007 Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 1 Tyler -Walters, 2007 Trophic level Suspension feeder. Phytoplankton, 1 http://www.seaaroundu zooplankton and particulate matter. s.org/eez/724/200.aspx# Trophic level is around 2. Overall score Arithmetic mean of scores 1

Susceptibility Susceptibility scores four attributes of the fishery in relation to the Cerastoderma edule population, notably areal overlap, vertical overlap, selectivity and post-capture mortality. However, since the selectivity attribute is not defined by MSC for this particular gear type it was defined by the team. Based on this, the team proposed dividing the selectivity of bullraking into three categories taking into consideration the MLS stipulated for the species, that is, the proportion of immature animals

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 179 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 encountered by the gear that escape through the bars of the bullrake. If juveniles escape during the fishing process, indirect mortality due to predation will decrease since individuals can reburrow almost immediately after escaping through the bars of the grid, diminishing the time exposed to predation.

1. Low risk score for selectivity for the species: more than 90% of the cockles caught are above the MLS. 2. Medium risk score for selectivity for the species: 75%-90% of the cockles caught are above the MLS. 3. High risk score for selectivity for the species: less than 75% of the cockles caught are above the MLS. The scores and rationale for each attribute are shown in the following Table.

Susceptibility score. Value Score

Areal Overlap A high overlap of the fishing effort with a species 3 distribution of the stock. Vertical Overlap The technical characteristics of the gear used allow digging 3 clams out of the sediments until the maximum burrowing depth of the species. Therefore a high vertical overlap occurs. Selectivity According to stakehold ers bullrakes are extremely 1 selective and therefore the proportion of undersized individuals in the catch is lower than 10%. Post -capture mortality If you effectively can remove the target species from the 3 system with the fishing gear there is a high risk that it could remove too much. Overall score 1.65

Venerupis corrugata Considering the life history attributes of Venerupis corrugata it was concluded that this species has a high productivity. Susceptibility to fishing pressure was scored as high for attributes 1 and 2, respectively, and low for the remaining two attributes. Concerning areal overlap susceptibility was considered high due to the fact that fishing effort overlap more than 30% with the species distribution of the stock, whereas susceptibility for the vertical overlap attribute was classified as high since the technical characteristics of the gear used can dig clams out of sediment until the maximum burrowing depth of the species. The harvest methods used are highly selective and therefore susceptibility for the selectivity attribute was low.

The team decided to used the highest default score (3) for post-capture mortality due to the high score allocated for selectivity, a large portion of animals undersized individuals and bycatch are returned alive and survive the encounter (please see MSC Certification Requirements v1).

This led to an overall score for the PSA of 1.93 which corresponds to a MSC score of 96.0, higher than the score attained with SICA, reaching a final score of 96 for PI 1.1.1. Productivity

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 180 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Seven attributes of the life history of Venerupis corrugata were considered and scored to achieve productivity. The scores and rationale for each attribute are shown in the following Table. Productivity score. Value Score Reference Average age at maturity Full spawning by the second year 1 Maia et al. , 2006 (1+) Average maximum age Around 6 -7 years 1 Quayle, 1952; Maia et al. , 2006 Fecundity Betwe en 2x10 6 and 8x10 6 oocytes 1 Garcia -Martin et al ., per female (SL of 30 and 43 mm, 2007 respectively) Average maximum size 50 mm SL 1 Macedo et al. , 1999 Average size at maturity 22 mm SL 1 Maia et al. , 2006 Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 1 Trophic level Suspension feeder. Suspended 1 http://www.seaaroundu organic matter, particularly s.org/eez/724/200.aspx# unicellular algae. Trophic level is around 2 Overall score Arithmetic m ean of scores 1

Susceptibility Susceptibility scores four attributes of the fishery in relation to the Venerupis corrugata population, notably areal overlap, vertical overlap, selectivity and post-capture mortality. However, since the selectivity attribute is not defined by MSC for this particular gear type it was defined by the team. Based on this, the team proposed dividing the selectivity of bullraking into three categories taking into consideration the MLS stipulated for the species, that is, the proportion of immature animals encountered by the gear that escape through the bars of the bullrake. If juveniles escape during the fishing process, indirect mortality due to predation will decrease since individuals can reburrow almost immediately after escaping through the bars of the grid, diminishing the time exposed to predation. 1. Low risk score for selectivity for the species: more than 90% of the pullet carpet shells caught are above the MLS. 2. Medium risk score for selectivity for the species: 75%-90% of the pullet carpet shells caught are above the MLS. 3. High risk score for selectivity for the species: less than 75% of the pullet carpet shells caught are above the MLS. The scores and rationale for each attribute are shown in the following Table. Susceptibility score. Value Score

Areal Overlap A high overlap of the fishing effort with a species 3 distribution of the stock. Vertical Overlap The technical characteristics of the gear used allow digging 3 clams out of the sediments until the maximum burrowing depth of the species. Therefore a high vertical overlap occurs. Selectivity According to stakeholders bullrakes are extremely 1

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 181 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

selective and therefore the proportion of undersized individuals in the catch is lower than 10%. Post -capture m ortality If you effectively can remove the target species from the 3 system with the fishing gear there is a high risk that it could remove too much. Overall score 1. 65

Venerupis decussata Considering the life history attributes of Venerupis decussata it was concluded that this species has a high productivity. Susceptibility to fishing pressure was scored as high for attributes 1 and 2, respectively, and low for the remaining two attributes. Concerning areal overlap susceptibility was considered high due to the fact that fishing effort overlap more than 30% with the species distribution of the stock, whereas susceptibility for the vertical overlap attribute was classified as high since the technical characteristics of the gear used can dig clams out of sediment until the maximum burrowing depth of the species. The harvest methods used are highly selective and therefore susceptibility for the selectivity attribute was low.

The team decided to used the highest default score (3) for post-capture mortality due to the high score allocated for selectivity and moreover, a large portion of animals undersized individuals and bycatch are returned alive and survive the encounter (please see MSC Certification Requirements v1).

This led to an overall score for the PSA of 1.93 which corresponds to a MSC score of 96.0, higher than the score attained with SICA, reaching a final score of 96 for PI 1.1.1.

Productivity Seven attributes of the life history of Venerupis decussata were considered and scored to achieve productivity. The scores and rationale for each attribute are shown in the following Table. Productivity score. Value Score Reference Average age at maturity 2-4 years old 1 Jurić et al. , 2012 Average maximum age Around 7 -8 years 1 Matias (IPIMAR, pers. comm.) Fecundity Between 2x10 6 and 10x10 6 oocytes 1 Garcia -Martin et al ., per female (SL of 25 and 50 mm, 2007 respectively) Average maximum size 75 mm SL 1 Macedo et al. , 1999 Average s ize at maturity 20 -25 mm in SL 1 Matias, 2012. Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 1 Trophic level Active suspension feeder. 1 http://www.seaaroundu Suspended organic matter, s.org/eez/724/200.aspx# particularly unicellular algae. Trophic level is around 2. Overall score Arithmetic mean of scores 1

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 182 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Susceptibility Susceptibility scores four attributes of the fishery in relation to the Venerupis decussata population, notably areal overlap, vertical overlap, selectivity and post-capture mortality. However, since the selectivity attribute is not defined by MSC for this particular gear type it was defined by the team. Based on this, the team proposed dividing the selectivity of bullraking into three categories taking into consideration the MLS stipulated for the species, that is, the proportion of immature animals encountered by the gear that escape through the bars of the bullrake. If juveniles escape during the fishing process, indirect mortality due to predation will decrease since individuals can reburrow almost immediately after escaping through the bars of the grid, diminishing the time exposed to predation. 1. Low risk score for selectivity for the species: more than 90% of the grooved carpet shells caught are above the MLS. 2. Medium risk score for selectivity for the species: 75%-90% of the grooved carpet shells caught are above the MLS. 3. High risk score for selectivity for the species: less than 75% of the grooved carpet shells caught are above the MLS. The scores and rationale for each attribute are shown in the following Table. Susceptibility score. Value Score

Areal Overlap A high overlap of the fishing effort with a species 3 distribution of the stock. Vertical Overlap The technical characteristics of the gear used allow digging 3 clams out of the sediments until the maximum burrowing depth of the species. Therefore a high vertical overlap occurs. Selectivity According to stakeholders bullrakes are extremely 1 selective and therefore the proportion of undersized individuals in the catch is lower than 10%. Post -capture mortality If you effectively can remove the target species from the 3 system with the fishing gear there is a high risk that it could remove too much. Overall score 1.65

Venerupis philippinarum Considering the life history attributes of Venerupis philippinarum it was concluded that this species has a high productivity. Susceptibility to fishing pressure was scored as high for attributes 1 and 2, respectively, and low for the remaining two attributes. Concerning areal overlap susceptibility was considered high due to the fact that fishing effort overlap more than 30% with the species distribution of the stock, whereas susceptibility for the vertical overlap attribute was classified as high since the technical characteristics of the gear used can dig clams out of sediment until the maximum burrowing depth of the species. The harvest methods used are highly selective and therefore susceptibility for the selectivity attribute was low.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 183 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The team decided to used the highest default score (3) for post-capture mortality due to the high score allocated for selectivity and moreover, a large portion of animals undersized individuals and bycatch are returned alive and survive the encounter (please see MSC Certification Requirements v1).

This led to an overall score for the PSA of 1.93 which corresponds to a MSC score of 96.0, higher than the score attained with SICA, reaching a final score of 96 for PI 1.1.1.

Productivity Seven attributes of the life history of Venerupis corrugata were considered and scored to achieve productivity. The scores and rationale for each attribute are shown in the following Table. Productivity score. Value Score Reference Average age at maturity 2-4 years old 1 Jurić et al. , 2012 Average maximum age Around 7 -8 years 1 Ponurovskii, 2008; Garaulet et al. , 2012 Fecundity Between 500000 and 8x10 6 oocytes 1 Garcia -Martin et al ., per female (SL of 29 and 58 mm, 2007 respectively) Average maximum size 80 mm SL 1 Poppe, G.T. & Y. Goto, 1993 Average size at maturity 20 -25 mm in SL 1 Jones et al. , 1993 Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 1 Trophic level Active su spension feeder. 1 http://www.seaaroundu Suspended organic matter, s.org/eez/724/200.aspx# particularly unicellular algae. Trophic level is around 2. Overall score Arithmetic mean of scores 1

Susceptibility Susceptibility scores four attributes of the fishery in relation to the Venerupis philippinarum population, notably areal overlap, vertical overlap, selectivity and post-capture mortality. However, since the selectivity attribute is not defined by MSC for this particular gear type it was defined by the team. Based on this, the team proposed dividing the selectivity of bullraking into three categories taking into consideration the MLS stipulated for the species, that is, the proportion of immature animals encountered by the gear that escape through the bars of the bullrake. If juveniles escape during the fishing process, indirect mortality due to predation will decrease since individuals can reburrow almost immediately after escaping through the bars of the grid, diminishing the time exposed to predation. 1. Low risk score for selectivity for the species: more than 90% of the manila clams caught are above the MLS. 2. Medium risk score for selectivity for the species: 75%-90% of the manila clams caught are above the MLS. 3. High risk score for selectivity for the species: less than 75% of the manila clams caught are above the MLS.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 184 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

The scores and rationale for each attribute are shown in the following Table.

Susceptibility score. Value Score

Areal Overlap A high overlap of the fishing effort with a species 3 distribution of the stock. Vertical Overlap The technical characteristics of the gear used allow digging 3 clams out of the sediments until the maximum burrowing depth of the species. Therefore a high vertical overlap occurs. Selectivity According to stakeholders bullrakes are extremely 1 selective and therefore the proportion of undersized individuals in the catch is lower than 10%. Post -capture mortality If you effectively can remove the target species from the 3 system with the fishing gear there is a high risk that it could remove too much. Overall score 1.65

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 185 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Appendix 1.3 Conditions

Table 13 Condition 1 2.2.3. Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to Performance manage bycatch Indicator 2. 5.3 M. There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Score 75

Rationale See PI 2.2.3 SG 80a) and PI 2.5.3 M SG 80 e)

By the second surveillance audit, the Unit of Certification must have put in place a sampling programme to collect data on: i) bycatch from bullrakes (used by harvesters on foot on the intertidal zone and by harvesters fishing on Condition board); ii) and enhancement activities, namely on removal of predators and on accidental species collected during the removal of dead seaweed; iii) amount of dead seaweed removed.

By the second surveillance audit, the Unit of Certification must have put in place a sampling programme.

Yearly reports must be produced in the following years. Milestones Based in the results achieved the audit team have to decide if there is a need to design a management plan for bycatch, predators removal and/or seaweed removal. If it is the case, the management plan (s) must be designed until the end of the fourth surveillance audit.

Client actio n plan This will be completed with the client action plan.

As the attainment of the condition depends directly on the fishers included in Consultation on the certification unit and is based on an improvement in the management of condition the fishery the consultation process has been done with the client.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 186 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Table 14 Condition2 Performance 2.5.2. M There are measures in place to ensure that the fishery does not pose a Indicator risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.

Score 75

Rationale See PI 2.5.2M SG 80e )

The Unit of Certification has to eliminate the sowing of manila clam seed Condition (either from natural beds or from hactheries) because this practice promotes the populations of this exotic species, fostering the impacts on the ecosystem induced by it. As soon as the fishery is certified, the UC must stop the sowing of manila clam Milestones seed.

Client action plan This will be completed with the client action plan.

As the attainment of the condition depends directly on the fishers included in Consultation on the certification unit and is based on an improvement in the management of condition the fishery the consultation process has been done with the client.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 187 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Client Action Plan Condition 1 Conditional Requeriments How meet By Whom When completed By the second surveillance A sampling of bycatch will be conducted audit, the Unit of Certification twice a year as defined in the working must have put in place a plan of the fishery both for harvesters sampling programme to on foot and onboard. collect data on: i) bycatch The sampling process will consist in from bullrakes (used by taking subsamples of the catch from harvesters on foot on the bullrakes. Both target species and intertidal zone and by bycatch species will be counted, harvesters fishing on board); weighted and measured. ii) enhancement activities, namely on removal of The sampling regarding the predators predators and on accidental removal will be carried out, in three species collected during the different periods: January-February, It started in 2013, removal of dead seaweed; and May-August and November-December. by the end of 2014 an iii) amount of dead seaweed Biologist of The sampling process will consist in assessment of the removed . Yearly reports must the taking subsamples of the catches from data will be carry be produced in the following the traps used to remove predators. Cooperative years. out to ascertain if Individuals will be identified, counted, data collection weighted and measured. must continue The sampling regarding dead sea weed will be carried on annually whenever a high number of dead seaweed is observed. The sampling process will consist in weighting the dead seaweed removed. In addition, in subtidal areas, the accidental individuals that will be caught along with the dead seaweed will be identified, counted, weighted and measured.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 188 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Client Action Plan Condition 2 Conditional How meet By Whom When completed Requeriments The Unit of The UC agree d not to carry on Certification must have with the sowing of the juvenils eliminated the sowing of the species Venerupis of manila clam seed philippinarum , either from (either from natural hatchery or from natural beds. From the moment beds or from when the fishery The Cooperative can continue Biologist of the hactheries) because became certified, with the harvest of this Cooperative this practice promotes scheduled on January species in their TURF, the population of this 2013 therefore they can exotic species, commercialized them. fostering the impacts on the ecosystem induced by it.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 189 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Appendix 2 Peer Review Report

Peer Reviewer 1 Has the assessment team arrived at an Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Yes Response presented in the assessment report? Justification: While I disagree with a number of issues in the assessment, I think that overall the team has arrived at the correct conclusion that the fishery should be certified.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Yes Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: It was clarified in the rationale of Although 8 scores of below 80 have been awarded, 7 of these refer condition 1 that based in the to the same PI (2.5.3) in the different Units of Certification so these results achieved, the audit team have been amalgamated into Condition 1. In addition, a second have to decide if there is a need to design a management plan for condition is set for PI 2.5.2 M. bycatch, predators removal or/and Condition 2 is straightforward as it requires the clients to stop seaweed removal. sowing manila clam seed onto the grounds. This has a relatively short timeframe (the 2nd surveillance audit) but should be easy to achieve as it can be stopped overnight once the agreement of the Cooperative is obtained, though it will require subsequent policing to ensure compliance. Whether compliance will achieve any useful outcome, other than meeting the MSC scoring issue is, I think, open to doubt (see below). Condition I, covering 7 Units of Certification, is more complex as it requires the setting up of a number of different data collecting programmes by the 2nd surveillance audit. The wording of the condition is rather curious as it simply requires that sampling programmes should be set up but says little about the objectives of collecting these data or about the subsequent analysis..

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Justification: The client action plan, although brief, contains sufficient information to show that the conditions can be closed in the required timeframe.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) Although this fishery is relatively small in terms of catch and numbers of fishers involved - and takes place within a relatively confined geographical area - it is quite a complex fishery to assess under the MSC scheme. Thus with four species of clam (including an introduced species) and two different methods of capture (used in the intertidal and subtidal zones), the fishery has been divided into PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 190 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012 eight Units of Certification. These clam fisheries involve human interventions so they are considered as enhanced fisheries under the MSC assessment scheme, with some components of the fishery coming under the category of a Habitat Modified Fishery and other aspects considered as a Hatch and Catch Fishery. Finally, with no analytical assessment of stocks or reference points and a lack of quantitative information on bycatch, discards and enhancement activities, a number of PI’s have been assessed using the RBF. This all makes for a complex assessment report utilizing most of the components and methods available under the MSC scheme, and the team must be congratulated on pulling this together into a coherent report, without too much repetition, albeit that the final report occupies some 195 pages. For the three species of Venerupis , and the cockle Cerastoderma edule , there is a very substantial literature on the biology and ecology, including studies in Ria de Arousa and similar locations in Spain and Portugal, and a similarly detailed literature on relevant aspects of the hydrography, benthic ecology, fisheries and environmental impact of fishing. This literature is very well reviewed and incorporated into this assessment, which contains probably the longest list of literature quoted in any MSC assessment I have seen. It is therefore of some surprise to find that the RBF was used to score so many PI’s and, that being the case, that so little provision was made through the use of conditions or recommendations to enable the conventional Assessment Tree to be used for any future assessments. My principal concern with this assessment is the way in which an introduced species that has become so well established that it is effectively now part of the established fauna of Ria de Arousa (and cannot be irradicated) can be dealt with under the MSC certification scheme. My worry is that the condition set to achieve compliance with the scheme could be, in effect, a worthless gesture whose only impact is to make the fishery less efficient and less profitable. This report is generally clear, well illustrated and very well referenced but its clarity would be enhanced if a good English speaker could go through it and eliminate many of the minor errors in the text.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 191 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Indicator Review

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

1.1.1 Yes No NA I do not believe that the RBF scores have been We agree with the reviewer. There was a calculated correctly here – and do not find the misunderstanding from the Team regarding the Certification Requirements Version 1.2 very clear on Certification Requeriments V 1.2. this. If the SICA score is 80 and the PSA score is 95.5 my understanding is that the PSA score should be used As the Peer Reviewer explained if SICA scores > (see Table CC19, Certification Requirements 1.2) not, 80 and PSA > 80 is not neccesary to apply the as here, the SICA score. This is further supported by PSA and the rule articulates to assing the higher Figure CC1 (p114), although in the text CC2.3.6.1 score in this case 99,5. The refering tables have suggests that the PSA is only applied if the SICA been changed. consequence score is 3 or higher. This needs to be clarified with MSC - but in either case how it is done here is incorrect: if the SICA score is correct then no PSA should have been performed.

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA RBF default score

1.1.3 NA NA NA Fishery is not depleted

1.1.4 A Yes Yes NA Some genetic work has been carrried out but this is not sufficient to determine with a high degree of certainty that there are no risks to the genetic structure of the wild population. Accordingly, the team have made a recommendaton that further work should be carried out on this subject and I support this.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 192 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA There is a well-developed management strategy in We understand the point of view of the reviewer, it place, backed by a twice-yearly monitoring programme is believed that although the harvest strategy is and subject to annual review which provides evidence responsive to the state of the stock is not that it is achieving its objectives. The RBF was used to designed to achieve stock management objectives score this PI as there are no target or limit reference reflected in the target and limit reference points, points in this fishery, so the fishery should not be because these were not set for the fisheries under penalised here for failure to meet reference points, as assessment. Therefore by adopting the this has already been addressed in the scoring of precautionary principle it was decided that this PI1.1.2 The scoring justifications here show a failure of issue is not met. logic. If the team consider that the fishery fails to meet SG100a because there are no reference points, they should also fail SG 60a & 80a on the same basis. The score of <60 would, of course, mean that the fishery fails certification, which would clearly not be the intention of the MSC, so I would argue that the score of 100a should be increased or a different rationale should be written.

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA My comments for 1.2.1 also apply to this PI. There are The rationale was slightly modified to clearly well established harvest control rules in place accommodate the reviewer comment. that respond to the state of the stocks but no mention is made in SG 80b of the main uncertainties and how the harvest control rules take account of these.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Agree with the score

1.2.4 NA NA NA RBF default score

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 193 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

1.2.5 Yes Yes NA The work quoted here in support was based on V. We followed the nomenclature proposed in the pullastra , not V. corrugata . Although this work has not WORMS website. The scientific name of the yet been published some better reference to this study species has recently changed from Venerupis should be included, such as the names of the authors. I senegalensis (= V. pullastra ) to Venerupis agree with the score. corrugata . At this time we do not have more information about the names of the authors.

1.2.6 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA No retained species other than the target species.

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scored with the RBF. According to my understanding of We agree with the reviewer. There was a the Certification Requirements 1.2 (see CC! p 114) it misunderstanding from the Team regarding the was not necessary to carry out the PSA since the SICA Certification Requeriments V 1.2. score was >80. The information regarding Productivity and Susceptibility were eliminated applying the RBF Requeriments.

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA The MSC definition of bycatch includes the unobserved The reviewer is rigth. Some information was added animals that die because of unobserved fishing mortaiity to the rationale. (i.e incidental mortality). Nothing is said in the justification about this component. I agree that there is a lack of quantitative information on bycatch. PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 194 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA While there would appear to be little bycatch in this We agree with the reviewer. There is a lack of fishery, there is a lack of quantitative data, including the quantitative data on bycatch and therefore some level of incidental mortality. Although the fishery data must be gathered. In this way, the team probably justifies a score of 80 for this PI, I would have decided that the issue SG80a is not met and the liked to see a recommendation to encourage the fishery score to the PI 2.2.3 was changed to 75 which lead to look more carefully at this. to the raise of a condition. Since the condition 1 already mention the need of collecting bycatch data, the team decided that there is no need to include a new condition. Therefore, Condition 1 answers the data need for both PI 2.2.3 and PI 2.5.3.

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA There is a lack of relevant detail in the justifications The scoring of this issue was based in the suggesting that it has not been considered too carefully. information gathered from Thus there is no mention of CITES listed species or of http://www.faunagallega.es.tl/# ; cetaceaans or of the fact that the Ria de Arousa is an http://www.medioruralemar.xunta.es/ . There are important bird feeding area on the migration routes evidences (see de Coo et al., 2012) that no ETP between Africa and northern Europe. However, species that rely on the target species occurs in because of the nature of the fishery I agree that it is TURF of The Unit of Certificantion nor in Ria unlikely to have a serious affect on any ETP species Arousa. Moreover, all stakeholders interviewed during the audits meetings referred that no ETP species are affected by the fisheries under assessment.

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Agree with score

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score because of the lack of detailed information.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 195 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.4.1 Yes No NA I have a number of problems with this Table. Comment 1: We agree with the Peer Reviewer.The 1. The rationale in SG100a states that a PSA was rational was modified in order to accommodate this carried out which is not correct: there is no PSA for comment. Habitats. So the reference to Appendix 1.2.2 is incorrect. 2. I do not understand how the score of 100 was Comment 2: We agree with the Peer Reviewer. It derived. The SICA workshop carried out separate SICA was added a new table to score PI 2.4.1. for assessments for harvesting on foot and harvesting on harvesting on board. board and these were awarded scores of 100 and 80 respectively. Evaluation Table 2.4.1 considers the two Comment 3: The decision to use of RBF was made together and awards a score of 100 – how was this by the team at the begginning of the process, since calculated? there is indeed a paucity of data on this issue for 3. Given the very large amount of published work on Ria de Arousa. Moreover, this is a very complex such habitats (see Table 2.4.3) I would not have thought fishery, since apart from the harvesting itself also it necessary to use the RBF for this PI. involves enhacement activities.

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Agree the score

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Given all the information available I think the score of 85 As it was mentioned in the rationale “Although it is is a bit low, with the team over-concerned about using believed that habitat restoration occurs within one work carried out elsewhere. The justifications written year, the team agreed that this issue is not met here I think make a good case for why the use of the because the precise effects associated with the RBF was not necessary for 2.4.1. fishing gears used and the enhancement activities carried out in the clam fisheries were not assessed for the TURF of the UC.”. Based on this, the team decided to maintain the score for this issue.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 196 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scored using the RBF, although I am not conviced that it The decision to use of RBF was made by the team was necessary. at the begginning of the process, since there is indeed a paucity of data on this issue for Ria Arousa. Moreover, this is a very complex fishery, since apart from the harvesting itself also comprises a set of enhancement activities.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA No references are given References were added.

2.5.3 Yes Yes Yes Although a substantial amount of relevant information is available, the collection of on-going data to assess increases in risk and determine the impacts of enhancement activities would be beneficial.

2.5.1 M Yes Yes NA This is a difficult one to score because there is no doubt Indeed, the team also felt that this is a very difficult that the manila clam does disrupt ecosystem structure issue to score due to the reasons pointed out by and function but it is now an established, naturalized, the reviewer. Nevertheless, taking into species that cannot be irrradicated. In their scoring the consideration the distribution of the species within team have taken a pragmatic view that it is highly Ria Arousa and the information available, the team unlikely to disrupt further the key elements of the believed that, at least, the SG80 is met. Without, system and on that basis decided that SG80 is met. information on the impact of the manila clam in the This is a decision that I am happy to go along with area it is difficult to justify a higher score. although it is a somewhat arbitrary basis for scoring. In the same way the decision that SG100 was not met because of the lack of work in Ria de Arousa is also arbitrary. I do not feel strongly about this issue but would not have objected if the team had scored it at 100.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 197 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.5.2 M Yes Yes No This is very problematic and the MSC scoring issues for The team also feels that MSC guidelines related to introduced species do not seem to me to be written to introduced species does not takes into deal with this situation. There is an introduced species consideration the species that are already but it has been there a long time and is now established. established in the area and that are impossible to It is likely that nothing the fishery management or irradicate such as it is the case of the manila clam. anybody can do will irradicate it because it is Thus, some criterion are not suitable for this type of competitively superior to the native species. Various species. This topic was the subject of considerable measures could be taken to attempt to restrict the debate within the team. We agree with the introduced species and favour the native species (some comments of the reviewer that the condition set are listed in the rationale for SG60a) but nobody can may decrease the profitability of the fishery . predict how successful these would be. In setting According to the MSC guidelines “CABs shall Condition 2 the team have opted for just one of the four address measures in place to prevent further measures they suggest. This may alter the species ecosystem impacts that may have occurred as a composition or timeframe in the short term but is very result of the introduction of the species to the new unlikely to produce a long term change. What is more location.” Within this CAB measures should be put predictable is that the profitability of the fishery will fall, in place to prevent further spread and to allow the at least in the short term, since V. philippinarum is the recovey of the species impacted by the most profitable species fished in the Ria de Arousa. I introduction. The team believes that seed sowing am therefore concerned that, in seeking to meet the does not met these requirements. Therefore a MSC scoring guidepost, the fishery is being asked to condition was set. introduce a measure that will damage the profitability of the fishery but will not deliver the ecosystem protection Apart from forbid the sowing of manila clam seed, required. Was any consideration given to introducing other solutions, namely measure iii (please see the other three measures suggested? Of these, ii) and SG60a), were proposed by the team to UC, but iii) both seem to have some short term advantages, none of them were accepted due to the costs that though they may be very costly, and both should be the implementation of this measures would involve. investigated further. However, in the long-term, the Concerning the question raised by the reviewer maiila clam is there and will remain there. How long “How long does a species have to be present does a species have to be present before it is before it is considered to be part of the ‘native’ considered to be part of the ‘native’ fauna? fauna?”, the team have the same doubt. We believe that is an issue that must be decided by MSC. PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 198 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.5.3 M Yes Yes NA I agree with the score but further study needs to be We agree with the referee. However, the team made in Ria de Arousa, especially if any of the proposed other alternatives to the SOCIEDAD manipulative measures mentioned above are COOPERATIVA GALLEGA DE AROUSA but none implemented. of them were accepted.

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA A well managed fishery

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score

3.1.4 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA The fishery has short term objectives so the scoring of SG100a is a bit harsh – I would have awarded 90 for this.

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score

3.2.5 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 199 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework:

Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: Conformity Assessment Body Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- how the process referenced? Please support your answers by referring to specific used to Yes/No scoring issues and any relevant documentation where determine risk possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. using the RBF led to the stated outcome? Yes/No No Yes The processes by which the SICA and PSA scores were derived are We agree with the reviewer. There was a misunderstanding 1.1.1 clearly explained and set out in the text and Tables in the from the Team regarding the Certification Requeriments V 1.2. Appendices. However, the process by which the final score is derived when the SICA and PSA scores differ is not described and is, As the Peer Reviewer explained if SICA scores > 80 and PSA I believe, incorrect. Ie When the PSA score is higher than the SICA > 80 is not neccesary to apply the PSA and the rule articulates score, the PSA score should be used. to assing the higher score in this case 99,5. The refering tables have been changed. Each individual table is given a table number and it would have been helpful to the reader if these were referred to in the scoring tables, not just to the Appendix number. NA NA 2.1.1

No No According to my understanding of the Certification Requirements 1.2 We agree with the reviewer. There was a misunderstanding 2.2.1 (see CC1 p 114) it was not necessary to carry out the PSA since the from the Team regarding the Certification Requeriments V 1.2. SICA score was >80. The information regarding Productivity and Susceptibility were eliminated applying the RBF Requeriments. No No According to Appendix 1.2.1 (Tables 9 & 10) two SICA analyses were We agree with the Peer Reviewer. It was added a new table to 2.4.1 carried out for Habitats – for harvesting on foot and on board – and score PI 2.4.1. for harvesting on board and the modifications in these were scored at 100 & 80 respectively. However, Evaluation all the scores were done. Table 2.4.1 considers the two together and awards a score of 100 – but there is no indication of how was this calculated? Yes No The text just reports the conclusions of the SICA participants but is Concerning predators removal, there is no information for the 2.5.1 not supported by any references to published work TURF of UC, which has led us to carry out the RBF. Nertheless it was added in the rationale that the impacts that may occur due to this enhancement activity are described in PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 200 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

section 3.4.6. Ecosystem impacts.

For reports assessing enhanced fisheries: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise Yes/No Conformity Assessment Body R esponse: from enhancement activities?

Yes Justification: The impacts of enhancement activities such as adding sand to the grounds, covering juvenile clams with netting and seeding with hatchery reared juveniles are discussed and evaluated.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 201 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Peer Reviewer 2 Has the assessment team arrived at an Conformity Assessment Body appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Yes Response presented in the assessment report? Justification: The information provided in the body of the report and scoring tables is adequate and supports the final conclusion.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Yes Response outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: There are two conditions raised. The conditions raised against are appropriate and within the capability of the assessed fishery, and should achieve the SG80 outcome.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes Conformity Assessment Body to close the conditions raised? Response Justification: The client’s proposed response to the condition is realistic and appropriate.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) It is a well written report. The text in the body of the report contains a magnitude of detailed information. In the scoring tables there are several references to the body of the report which makes it sometimes difficult for the reader to see on what justification the team has drawn its conclusions. A summary of the information on which the teams conclusions are based on should be provided in the scoring table.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 202 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Indicator Review

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

1.1.1 See comments on RBF in the special paragraph below.

1.1.2 NA RBF used

1.1.3 NA

1.2.1 Yes No NA In the rationale for the first SG 100 issue (a) it is “In general, the precautionary approach in fisheries mentioned that the precautionary approach is adopted. management is about being cautious when scientific The application of the precautionary approach is not part knowledge is uncertain, and not using the absence of the scoring issues here and in my opinion cannot form of adequate scientific information as a reason to part of the rationale. postpone action or failure to take action to avoid serious harm to fish stocks or their ecosystem.” The Since only one scoring issue out of three is met the team decided to adopt this approach (following FAO, score should be 85. DFO, etc. suggestion) whenever insufficient information was available namely to attribute the score 100 in several indicators.

The team decided to assign a higher weight to SG100d since the scoring issue that this SG relates to, “Harvest strategy review”, were not evaluate in SG60 and 80. On the contrary, the other 2 scoring issues of SG100 were previously evaluated in both SG60 and SG80.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 203 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

1.2.2 No Yes NA Same comment on the reference to the precautionary Please see comments to PI 1.2.1 approach in rationales for the first and third scoring issue.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA

1.2.4 N/A RBF used

1.2.5 Yes Yes NA

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 204 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.1.3 Yes No NA The score seems to high. The only information provided During the audits meetings several stakeholders is the statement of stakeholders (fishermen) that no were interviewed namely fishermen, researchers other species are retained. If there is no independent and fishing administrators. All of them were information to support this claim and no monitoring is unanimous in saying that in the fisheries under conducted the SG100d scoring issue is not met. assessment there are no retained species.

Researchers from CIMA said that anedoctal information related to this issue was collected some time ago but the results were not published. Moreover, direct observations made by one of the auditors in a similar fishery that is carried out in the Tagus river (Portugal) targeting the same bivalve species that are harvested in Ria Arousa, clearly showed that bullrakes only caugths bivalves and sheldom crabs or gastropods. This is due to the way the fishing gear is operated as well as the behavior of the gear during harvesting.

2.2.1 RBF used see section below.

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA The mentioning of the word precautionary in the scoring Please see comments to PI 1.2.1 rationale should be avoided.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 205 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.2.3 Yes No NA Since there is a lack of quantitative information it is The evaluation of the SGs concerning PI2.2.3 were difficult to conclude that there are no main discarded only based in the information provided by all species, therefore no partial strategy is needed and thus stakeholders during the RBF meetings. All of them no collection of information to detect any increase in risk referred that there are no main bycatch species in levels is needed. Either SG80 a or SG80d or both the fishery. Nevertheless, quantitaive information should attract a condition and some information on does not exist and therefore we agree with the discards has to be collected to bring this PI to a 80 referee that some data must be gathered. In this score. way, the team decided that the issue SG80a is not met and the score to the PI 2.2.3 was changed to 75 which lead to the raise of a condition. Since the condition 1 already mention the need of collecting bycatch data, the team decided that there is no need to include a new condition. Therefore, Condition 1 answers the data need for both PI 2.2.3 and PI 2.5.3.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 206 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.3.1 No No NA Rather than stating that no ETP species are reported it There are evidences (see de Coo et al., 2012) that would be interesting to learn which ETP species could no ETP species that rely on the target species be present. Are there any shellfish eating birds that are occurs in TURF of The Unit of Certificantion nor in considered ETP species in Spian and could they feed in Ria Arousa. Moreover, all stakeholders interviewed Ria Arousa? In the rationale of SG100c it is stated that during the audits meetings referred that no ETP the management seems to ensure the maintainance of species are affected by the fisheries under populations at sustainable levels. This rather points to assessment. the SG80c level and not to the SG100 level where certainty is required. Even If ETP occurred in the TURF of the Unit of Certification, the team believes that the harvesting strategy adopted as well as enhancement activities would have a positive impact on ETP species (namely birds) since the strategy is to mantain or increase the production of the exploited area year after year.

Taking into consideration the abovementioned, the team still believes that there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects of the fisheries on ETP species.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 207 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.3.2 Yes No NA Since the rationale states that there is no specific Indeed, there is not in place a precautionary management strategy in place for the protection and management strategy related to ETP species conservation of ETP species it can not be concluded specifically for the fisheries under assessment, as it that there is a comprehensive management strategy for was referred in SG100a. In PI 2.3.1 the rationale for ETP species. SG 100 a and b are therefore not met and SG100c says that no detrimental direct effects on the score is too high. ETP species related to the fisheries under assessment is expected considering all the aspects inherent to the fishery itself such as, harvesting technics, management plan, etc. In addition, there are evidences (see De Coo, 2012) that no ETP species that rely on the target species occurs in TURF of The Unit of Certificantion nor in Ria Arousa.

The team believes that for the fisheries under assessment there is no need to implement a specific or comprehensive management strategy for the protection of ETP species since no detrimental indirect or direct effects on these species are expected.

Notwithstanding, as it was mentioned in the rationale of 100a “Plans are being designed for ETP species. The plans designed so far can be consulted on the website of the Xunta de Galicia (http://www.medioruralemar.xunta.es/).”

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA SG100a. Reference to the precautionary principle Please see comments to PI 1.2.1 should be avoided since it is not part of the scoring issues.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 208 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.4.1 NA RBF was used, see RBF section below.

2.4.2 Yes No NA Part of the scoring rational presented under this PI deals We agree with the reviewer. Therefore the folowing with the impact of the activities carried out. This sentence was removed from the rationale of the SG information is more relevant for 2.4.1. Since RBF is 80a): carried out this information should be presented in the SICA table rationale. PI2.4.2 considers the management “Taking into consideration that both the effects of strategy that is inplace. Therefore here the strategy gear impact in dynamic habitats are quickly diluted should be described and evaluated against the 80 (Hall et al., 1990; Eleftheriou & Robertson, 1992) outcome level. and that sandy and muddy communities of dynamic habitats have a high capacity to recover in this habitats (e.g. Kaiser et al., 1998a; Spencer et al., 1998; Leitão & Gaspar, 2007), only short-medium term effects of clam harvesting are expected (there are no long-term effects).”

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA

2.5.1 NA RBF was used, see RBF section below.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Under SG60 SG100 rationales are mentioned. This The reviewer is right. The text was changed in should be SG80. accordance.

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 209 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA .

3.1.2 Yes No NA SG100a: A summary of the information in the referenced We took into account the comment of the reviewer paragraphs should also be provided in the table itself. It and more information was added to the rationale. should be made clear to the reader in the rationale that the information supports the score.

3.1.3 Yes No NA In the SG80a it is stated that the precautionary approach Additional comments were added to specify which can not be applied to this fishery.This statement are the particular features of the target species undermines the conclusion that this scoring issue is met. stocks that justifies that the SG100a was met.

3.1.4 Yes Yes NA The rationale should also express that subsidies do not Additional comments were added to clarify this issue result in perverse incentives (for instance) lead to overexploitation. The only statement concerning this issue now is the perpetition of the scoring issue.

3.2.1 No No NA The SG80 rationale states that no implicit objectives are provided for the fisheries management system. Probably We agree with the reviewer. The team meant it is meant to say “explicit”. Would it be implicit then “explicit”. SG60 would not be met. The implicit (and explicit) long term objective should always be a sustainable use of the resource. A score of 80 can only be awarded when the rationale states that some explicit objectives are formulated for this fishery. If not a condition should be set.

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 210 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Indicator relevant information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Response information and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please available been used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. used to score Indicator support performance to this Indicator? the given score? the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA The rationale of SG80d should summarize the We agree with the reviewer. The rationale was information in the referenced paragraphs that allows for modified in order to accommodate this comment and the conclusion that there is no evidence of systematic also the score for SG100a was changed. non-compliance.

SG100a: This performance indicator concerns control and enforcement of management measures. If a comprehensive control and enforcement system is in place this scoring issue is met. The fact that there is no comprehensive scientific monitoring of the fishery can not bring the score down since that is not relevant under this performance indicator.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA

3.2.5 Yes No SG80b should make clear in what way the performance Additional comments were added to clarify this of the management system against its objectives is issue. reviewed internally (and occasionally externally)..

The SG100a rationale is merely a copy of the SG100a scoring issue. Additional justification should be provided why the team concludes that the scoring issue is met.

Any Other Comments

Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 211 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Page 4 Site “assessment” should be site ”visit” All suggestions were accepted and the text was changed in conformity. Page 5: “extraordinary”meeting should be “additional” meeting Page 5: “skateholders” (several times in the report) Page 9: used two fishing methods = use two fishing methods Page 11. 3,447 km3. This figure seems to high. Page 12 Ensis silicua = Ensis siliqua

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework

Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: Conformity Assessment Body Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- how the process referenced? Please support your answers by referring to specific used to Yes/No scoring issues and any relevant documentation where determine risk possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. using the RBF led to the stated outcome? Yes/No 1.1.1 Yes No The rationales in the SICA tables should contain information on how It was added in the SICA table a reference with the information the team estimated the spatial scale of the activity and how the source used to score Spatial Scale and Temporal Scale of the different risk scores on this issue are reached. Risk score for activity. Venerupis philippinarum are 6 whereas risk scores for the other species are 4. It was detected a mistake is the SICA table concerning Venerupis decussata . Indeed, the Spatial score for this species is 6 and not 4. This was amended. The post capture mortality of a retained species should be scored The interpretation of the team concerning this issue does not with a high susceptibility score (3) since post capture mortality of the coincide, in part, with the reviewer. Indeed, in our opinion it target species will be 100 % when the gear is selective for the size should be evaluated the survival probability of the individuals targeted. (Certification Requirements Table CC 16.). According to the that are discarded independently of the selectivity of the gear Certification Requirements (CC2.4.2.2.5a) lower risk score can be used. Several factors should be considered for this: i) the given on post capture mortality when the selectivity score is high susceptibility of the species that are discarded; ii) the site to (which means that the gear is not selective and a large percentage of where the species are discarded; and iii) the exposure time the catch is undersized but released alive. Thus when the gear is before being discarded. All these factors were taken into highly selective most of the shellfish caught will be kept on board and consideration to assess “Post-capture mortality”. will not survive. PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 212 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

2.1.1 RBF not used

2.2.1 Yes No SICA: The spatial scale analysis should determine the overlap of the All PIs concerning Principle 2 are only related to the Unit of fishing activity with the stocks of bycatch species. Since the bycatch Certification Area, that is, the TURF of the “SOCIEDAD species are very common and widely distributed along the Spanish COOPERATIVA GALLEGA DE AROUSA”, not for the entire coast the overlap will be less than 1 % and the SICA score on spatial distribution area of the bycatch species. Therefore, spatial scale overlap would be 1. as well as the other SICA issue were scored for the TURF area PSA: Areal overlap: same comment as on SICA on areal overlap under assessment. score. The areal overlap of the activity with the stocks of bycatch species will be much less than 1 % and the PSA score on this issue should be 1. Information regarding selectivity was added in order to Selectivity: The team decided to divide the selectivity into three incorporate the reviewer comment. scoring categories. In the rationale for this division it should be made more clear that most immature animals encountered by the gear can escape through the bars of the bull rake and therefore there is a low risk for the bycatch species.. 2.4.1 No No The rationale in the SICA table does not explain how the risk score It was added in the SICA table a reference with the information on spatial scale is derived. source used to score Spatial Scale and Temporal Scale of the activity.

The rationale states that the impact on habitats is negligible. This The reviewer is right. The impact on habitat resulting from the would lead to a SICA score of 1. (100). addition of sand is not negligible but moderate. The text was modified. 2.5.1 Yes Yes

For reports assessing enhanced fisheries: Does the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise Yes Conformity Assessment Body Response: from enhancement activities? Justification: The impact of the sowing of hatchery seed, predator control and the loosening of sediment is clearly evaluated under Ecosystem Impact. A condition is set to reduce additional impacts from the sowing of Manilla clam seed. And another condition is formulated to improve the knowledge about the impact of enhancement activities like predator and seaweed removal.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 213 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

During the period of thirty days for public comments, the MSC send the next Review on Compliance with the scheme requirements

Ref Type Page Requirement Reference Details Conformity assessment body response 3542 Major 69 CR -27.8.10 Weights in each level of the final In pages 69 and 70. The weight We agree with the MSC Reviewers. The and tree (i.e. Principle, component or contribution of the Performance modification of the scoring was done. 70 PI) shall sum to one. Indicators to the Principle One Score does not sum to 1. Note that the PI 1.1.4. has been scored but weight has not been assigned. In page 70. The individual weight contribution of the Performance Indicators to the component “Management” does not sum 1. 3543 Major 69 CR -27.8.10.1 Teams shall give equ al weighting to In pages 69 and 70. There is not equal We agree with the MSC Reviewers. The and each PI within a component of the weight contribution of the modification of the scoring was done. 70 tree, and to each component Performance Indicators to the within a Principle of the tree. "Outcome" component. Although the weights seems to be the same for the original Pis, the new PI 1.1.4 has not been taken into consideration for weighting. In page 70. There is not equal weight contribution of the Performance Indicators to the "Management" component. 3545 Major 181 CR -CF1.2 Fisheries assessment reports shall The report does not include the PSA The tables were included in the first conform with the template “MSC rationale tables. According to the MSC version of the report. However, by mistake Full Assessment Reporting full assessment reporting template tables concerning PSA were removed from Template” found at (Appendix 1.2.2 - PSA), where a PSA the text due to a missinterpretation by the has been used, the report shall include team because of a peer reviewer (http://www.msc.org/documents/s the PSA Rationale Table (both P1 and comment. Indeed, reviewer one stated PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery fromcheme-documents. Ria Arousa page 214 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

P2). “According to my understanding of the Certification Requirements 1.2 (see CC1 p 114) it was not necessary to carry out the PSA since the SICA score was >80” which is correct but only for PI 2.2.1. Therefore, it was included in the text PSA Rationale Tables for PI 1.1.1 and all the text concerning PSA for PI 2.2.1 was removed. 3546 Major 181 CR -CC2.4.2.1d Where no cut -offs for a particular There are no cut -offs for the hand The selectivity table was included in the gear type are provided, teams shall devices used in these fisheries. first version of the report. However, by develop similar selectivity tables Following the PSA step 2, regarding mistake tables concerning PSA were that are appropriate for the gear the Scoring of species for removed form the text because of a being considered in the susceptibility, a selectivity table that is missinterpretation by the team due to certification. The assessment appropriate for the gear being reviewer comment (See Ref 3545). Tables report shall include a justification considered in the certification is to be have been included in the text once again. for the factors used and and cut- developed. This table has not been offs selected in these cases. included in the report. 3547 Major 181 CR -CC2.4.2.2.4 Scoring selectivity. a. The team The team has concluded that the Please see answer to comment Ref 3546. shall generate selectivity scores harvest methods used are highly Based on the cut-offs develop for after consideration of the potential selective and therefore susceptibility selectivity of the gear used (bullrake) it was of gear to capture or retain the for the selectivity attribute was low. considered that the susceptibility risk is species that do encounter fishing However this statement shall be based low. gear. on the specific selectivity table that has not been included in the report. Note that when developing an appropriate selectivity table, the assessment report shall also include a justification for the factors used and cut-offs selected in these cases. Cases where fishing gears are highly selective PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 215 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

and effective at catching the target species, such these, would normally be scored "high risk", no "low risk" in term of susceptibility. 3548 Major 181 CR -CC2.4.2.2.5 CC2.4.2.2.5 Scoring Post capture The team concluded that Post Capture Regarding Table CC16, expecifically Post mortality (PCM).a. The team shall Mortality attribute was classified as Capture Mortality, the score 1 (low-risk) use their knowledge of species low-risk. MSC assumes that this indicate: Evidence of post-capture release biology and fishing practice interpretation would relate to the and survival. The CAB do not agree with together with Independent field small proportion of the total catch the MSC interpretation concerning the observations to assess: i. Biological which is returned e.g. due to being high-risk score for Post Capture Mortality. factors that may limit the potential under legal size, not to the total catch. This consideration assumed that the target of a species to be captured alive. ii. As the species is a retained species, species has to be considered as retained Handling practices of the fishery not a discarded bycatch species, the species when the reality is that represents (ies) being considered. iii. The time PCM should be considered as ‘high- the landing of the fishery. Moreover, there taken to clear discards from the risk’ and the score changed to a ‘3’ are no retained species in the fisheries and deck . iv. The probability that if a accordingly. As shown in Table CC16, bycatch from the fishery is extremely low species is captured it would be such scoring is applicable by default to and comprises species extremely resilient released in condition that would cases of ‘Retained species’, or where to the entire fishing process and therefore permit subsequent survival. the ‘majority are dead when released’ bycatch individuals are discarded alive and (in the case of bycatch species). in condition that would permit its subsequent survival. The team believes that highly selective fisheries are not considered in the actual MSC guidelines and therefore some criterion are not suitable for this type of fisheries such as the one under assessment. Nevertheless, after a meeting held in MSC London, the team decided to adopt the MSC recommendation and scored this PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 216 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

issue with a 3, in addition some text was added (see pages from 179 to 185) 3551 Major 103 CR -27.10.6.1 Rationale shall be presented to In PI 1.2.5 80b rationale is marked as This mistake was corrected. A rationale support the team’s conclusion "yes" (meet) while its rationale refers was included to justify that SG80b was to PI 1.2.5 100b, marked as "n" (no meet. meet). No rationale is provided that some objective basis of evidence that the partial strategy will work based on information directly relevant to this species. 3553 Major 60 CR -27.6.1 The CAB shall nominate a da te The date of fishery certification and We agree with the MSC, the f irst paragraph from which product from a target eligibility date have been of point 5.1. was modified. certified fishery is likely to be conflated. As per 27.19.2 a fishery is eligible to bear the MSC ecolabel not officially certified until the Public (the target eligibility date). This Certification Report is published on the could be: The date of the MSC website. The target eligibility date certification of the fishery; or Any could be set as 31/12/2012 - but a date prior to the certification of the rationale for this date needs to be fishery up to a maximum of six given as per 27.6.3. If the target months prior to the publication of eligibility date is set to before official the most recent Public Comment certification, clarification is required as Draft Report. to how the seafood is being stored or sold as under assessment (UMAF). 3554 Major 61 CR -27.12.2.1 If the CAB determines the systems The exact point at which seafood We agree with the MSC, the information and are sufficient, fish and fish enters further Chains of Custody is not was clarified and included point 5.3 and 9 products from the fishery may specified. Page 9 states the point of 5.4. enter into further certified chains landing is Abanqueiro, is this also the of custody and be eligible to carry authorized sale point (fish market) the MSC ecolabel. The CAB shall referred to in page 61? There is no

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 217 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

determine: clear indication from which point further Chain of Custody will be The scope of the fishery certificate, required. The report does not include including the parties and categories the headings as per reporting template of parties eligible to use the ("5.3 E ligibility to Enter Further Chains certificate and the point (s) at of Custody" or "5.4 E ligibility of which chain of custody is needed. Inseparable or PracHcally Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody") which would otherwise include the detail required. 3556 Major CR -CK2.1.5.1 Enhanced HAC biv alve fisheries As required in MSC CR Annex, Venerupis philippinarum is an exotic shall also be scored against the regarding the Enchanced HAC bivalve species and therefore the main aim of Genetics PIs 1.1.4, 1.2.5, and 1.2.6 fisheries, the Assessment Team management should be to try to eradicate announced (Confirmation of the or control the populations of these types of Assessment Tree) and confirmed in the species in order to minimize the impacts PCDR (page 5) the need for scoring over endogenous species as well as on the against Additional Performance ecosystem. Therefore, no concerns about Indicators (PI 1.1.4, PI 1.2.5 and PI the impact of the fishery on the genetic 1.2.6) related to the potential effect of integrity of wild populations of exotic the fisheries on Venerupis corrugata species exist. Moreover, as eradication is (pullet carpet shell) and Venerupis not possible the European Commission philippinarum (manila clam) genetics. issued in 2008 a Communication Towards However those PIs have been scored an EU Strategy on Invasive Species, within against Venerupis corrugata , missing the containment and long-term control the scoring and tables of the PIs for could be required to stop the further Venerupis philippinarum . spread of invasive species. Related with this, the Team established one of the conditions “The Unit of Certification has to eliminate the sowing of manila clam seed (either from natural beds or from

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 218 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

hatcheries) because this practice promotes the populations of this exotic species, fostering the impacts on the ecosystem induced by it.” and thus population enhancement won’t be allowed if the UC wants the species to be certified. In this context, it makes no sense to score Additional Performance Indicators (PI 1.1.4, PI 1.2.5 and PI 1.2.6) related to the potential effect of the fisheries on V. philippinarum (manila clam) genetics. It is worth noting that the team made some considerations at the beginning of Appendices 1.1 being one of them related to V. philippinarum . 3557 Major 90 CR -27.10.6.1 Rationale shall be presented to As stated the section 6.1 (summary of The Team made a typing mistake regarding support the team’s conclusion. scores, page 63), and according to the the scoring of the PI tables, although the results of the PSA (pag 181), PI 1.1.1 summary score was corrected. The was scored at 100. However the PI was mistake was corrected. marked as 80 in the Evaluation table PI 1.1.1 in page 90 3558 Major 96 CR -27.10. 5.3 If all of the SG80 scoring issues are PI 1.2.1 has been marked as 90, The team decided to assign higher weight met, the PI must achieve at least however only two of the scoring issues to SG100d because the evaluation of the an 80 score and the team shall are met. According to CR-27.10.5.3iii: “Harvest strategy review” can only be done assess each of the scoring issues at Award of 85 should be given when in this SG 100d. On the contrary, the other the SG100 level. a. If not all of the performance against the scoring issues two 100 issues were already scored under SG100 scoring issues are met the PI is slightly above SG80 (a few scoring 60 an 80 issues. shall be given an intermediate issues are fully met but most are not score (85, 90 or 95) reflecting fully met).

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 219 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

overall performance against the different SG100 scoring issues. 3559 Major When relevant CAB’s shall define CAB sent to MSC (March 2012) the Bureau Veritas Certification decided to and include an additional scoring Confirmation of Assessment Tree in take into account the default table for the issue and corresponding which, in accordance with CJ2.1.3.1, Ecosystem Performance Indicator guideposts at 60, 80 and 100 levels additional scoring issues and published in the MSC website (March to the Ecosystem Management PI corresponding guide posts for PI2.5.2 2012) and perform the scoring again. 2.5.2 which evaluates measures in were defined in order to evaluate Please see the Explanatory Announcement the fishery to prevent progression measures in the fishery to prevent of the new Public Comment Draft Report of further ecosystem impacts from progression of further ecosystem version . It is important to note that these occurring due to the presence of impacts from occurring due to the changes have altered the scores in PI 2.5.2. the introduced species. presence of the introduced species. and the rationals in PI 2.5.1; PI 2.5.2 & PI However, in the PCDR, the entire 2.5.3 PI2.5.2 itself has been modified, changing both wording of the PI and scoring issues. This result in a variation of the assessment tree that has not been previously informed. Furthermore, the proposed PI2.5.2 seems to evaluate that "INTRODUCED SPECIES does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function", which is not what the PI, as defined by MSC, aims to evaluate (measures in place to ensure that the FISHERY does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function). The same comment applies to PI 2.5.1 and PI

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 220 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

2.5.3 3567 Major CR -27.10.6.1 Rationale shall be presented to Rationale does not support the score There are no retained species in this support the team’s conclusion. in PI 2.1.2, PI 2.1.3, PI 2.2.2, PI 2.2.3, PI fishery. Indeed, apart from the target 2.3.2, PI 2.3.3. According to CR species no other species are retained 27.10.6, the team shall verify that each because the species that may be caught scoring issue is fully and along with the target species have no unambiguously met. Rationale shall be commercial interest. Bycatch from presented to support the team’s bullrakes in this fishery is almost nil conclusion and shall make direct whereas when other harvesting strategies reference to every scoring issue and are use there are no bycatch because the whether or not it is fully met. It must target species is picked by hand. Catches be noted that the aim of the PIs above from bullrakes are comprised by more than mentioned is to evaluate whether or 98% of the target species and therefore not there are appropriate strategies in bycatch is insignificant. Moreover, bycatch place and if adequate (in nature and species (gastropods, other bivalves and amount) information supporting them crustaceans) are extremely resilient to this exist. type of fishery and since they are immediately discarded after being brought onboard mortality is negligible. Nevertheless, in the case of the PIs related to bycatch (2.2.2 and 2.2.3) since no quantitative data exists the team decided to be precautionary and therefore most of SG100 issues were not met. Moreover, a condition was set in order to obtain bycatch data. In this fishery no fishing gears are used and therefore impact and/ or interaction on/with ETP species are unlikely to occur. Thus there is no need to implement a PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 221 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

specific strategy for ETP species in this fishery. Notwithstanding, in the case of PI 2.3.3. due to the uncertainty related to the scarcity of quantitative information on ETP for Ria Arousa the team decided to be precautionary and therefore none of SG100 criteria were met. Regarding this Performance Indicators and to meet the General Requirements for Management Strategy (GCB 3.3.3), the client Sociedad Cooperativa has established a commitment to encourage the minimal impact of the fishery on retained species, bycatch and ETPs. 3538 Guidance N/A Heading of the Scoring table "UC07 " is This mistake was amended . repeated. In page 70 it seems to be "UC08" instead. 3549 Guidance N/A Performance Indicator PI1.2.5 and PI The species nomenclature was revised 1.2.6 rationales referer to " Venerupis following the well-known and freely pullastra " studies, but there is not a available database WoRMS (Appeltans et reference or clarification to the fact al., 2011). Although the currently valid that this species is the same as the designation was adopted, the original target species for certification nomenclature was kept unchanged in the "Venerupis corrugata " (current valid respective sources of information name, according assessment team). (bibliographic references). The name adopted for each species under assessment in the present report was as follows: • Cockle: Cerasterma edule (= Cardium PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 222 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

edule ). • Grooved carpet shell: Venerupis decussata (= Ruditapes decussatus ; = Tapes decussatus ) • Manila clam: Venerupis philippinarum (= Ruditapes philippinarum; = Venus philippinarum ) • Pullet carpet clam: Venerupis corrugata (= Venerupis senegalensis; = Venerupis pullastra ) This information was included in the report in the beginning of the section 3.3. 3552 Guidance 103 N/A Heading of the table in page 103 for The modification was done. scoring PI1.2.5 "Evaluation Table: PI 1.2.5 Venerupis corrugata " is in the previous page 102. 3565 Guidance 9 N/A Fishing area in page 9 seems to be We agree with the MSC. The mistake was mistaken. amended.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 223 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Peer Review 1 of the New Version! General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) This is an additional Peer Review of a revised version of the PCDR, following the MSC review on compliance with scheme requirements. In this review, comment is only made on those PI’s where the text or the scoring has been changed and on the Conformity Assessment Body’s response to the MSC reviewer’s comments Response to MSC Comments: Ref 3542 The MSC comment seems to be making two points here. The CAB has addressed the weighting problem and modified Table UC07 (p69) and UC08 (p70) but I cannot see how the scores have been modified. There are still only 1 of 3 issues met and the score in Table 1.2.1 remains at 90. Conformity Assessment Body Response : The MSC comment is regarding the weight contribution and it has been corrected. The answer to Peer Reviewer comment regarding the Table 1.2.1 was done in the Ref 3558. Ref 3543 The weighting factors for the new PI 1.1.4 have now been included in the table. I do not understand the final MSC comment in the Details box as all the PI’s in the Management component appear to have been equally weighted in the original document. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3545 I am sorry if I confused you with my previous comment but with the PSA Rationale table included for PI 1.1.1 but not for PI 2.2.1 it now seems to be correct. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3546 A selectivity table is now included that divides selectivity for the hand devices used into risk categories. The team have interpreted this in terms of MLS with a low risk score (1) awarded to high retention of clams above MLS so there is a low risk of undersized clams being caught and a high risk score (3) where more smaller clams are retained (see 3547 below). Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3547 This is the same point as Ref 3546 but the MSC reviewer is querying whether the scale should be the other way round. However, I agree with the assessment team that the risk or susceptibility of the clam population is greater if a wider range of sizes are retained in the gear (i.e the gear is less selective), and lower if the gear lets small clams escape. However, the justification for the cut-offs could perhaps be more clearly explained in the report. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 224 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Ref 3548 This is one of the problems I have confronted before with the application of the PSA to bivalve shellfish. Post Capture Mortality of a target or retained species is inevitably high for those animals above the MLS and usually low for small animals returned quickly to the sea. In this case it is obviously necessary to follow MSC advice and score it at 3 – and this will then be consistent with other bivalve fishery assessments I have seen. The additional text added clarifies this situation but some additional words should also be included in the Rationales for the Tables as at present it looks contradictory that a score of 3 should be given if PCM is negligible. Conformity Assessment Body Response: We agree with the Peer Review, the PSA information was reviewed and clarified to avoid confusion. Ref 3551 Yes – this was a mistake and has now been corrected Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3553 The date has now been modified but the original wording ‘from which’ rather than ‘for’ is better English. Conformity Assessment Body Response: The reviewer is right, we changed. Ref 3554 This text has now been modified and extended as required by MSC. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3556 I agree with the team’s response to this. If the release of hatchery produced V. philippinarum is to stop (Condition 2) then it will no longer be an Enhanced HAC fishery so the additional genetics PI’s should not be required. However, I personally think that any attempt to eradicate or control the manila clam population is a futile exercise. Like the elsewhere in Europe, V. philippinarum is here, it is well established and it is competitively superior to the ‘native’ species, so here it will stay whatever action the fishery takes and at some time in the future will be accepted as part of the natural fauna and treated as such in MSC assessments. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3557 There is still some confusion/error here. The PSA’s for all species were recalculated because of the revised scoring of Post Capture Mortality, so are now all 96. These are correctly entered as 96 in all the summary tables in Section 6.1 (p63-68) but are not correct in the PSA text, where they still say 100 for Venerupis corrugata (p180), V. decussata (p 181) and V. philippinarum (p183). Conformity Assessment Body Response: The reviewer is right, the text was changed in accordance. Ref 3558 There is clearly an error in the MSC Detail comment here as only one of the scoring issues is met, not two. However, with 3 scoring issues the decision whether to score 85 or 90 is problematic but I consider it reasonable for the team to decide to give greater weight to SG100d, though I am not entirely convinced by the logic of their rationale.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 225 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Conformity Assessment Body Response: The CAB has reviewed the MSC Requirements and had decided to score with an 85 the PI 1.2.1. Ref 3559 The procedural error identified by the MSC reviewer, whereby the additional scoring issues relating to the introduced species were left out of the assessment, has now been addressed, the scoring issues re-instated and these PI’s have been rescored. This has resulted in a reduced score for PI 2.5.2 from 85 to 75, which required that a condition (2) should be set. The rationales for PI’S 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 have been modified to make it clear that the assessment is evaluating the extent to which the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function, not whether the introduced species itself causes serious or irreversible harm. This now seems to be in line with MSC procedures and requirements and is an appropriate assessment of the situation. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3567 In answering this point the assessment team have taken the view that since there are no retained species, then there is no need for a strategy to manage them. I have some sympathy with this view for this fishery since the gears used are very simple and there is no (hand picking) or very little (bullrakes) bycatch and this is returned immediately to the sea (PI’s 2.1.2 & 2.1.3). However, while this may be true of this fishery at the present time, there does need to be mechanisms in place to ensure that this remains true and any future changes would be detected. Similar arguments are used to conclude that there is a need for formal strategies to manage bycatch and EPT species (PIs 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.3.2 & 2.3.3). However, the current lack of data on these questions has been at least partially addressed by getting the Cooperative to sign commitments of intent about continuing to have no impact on the retained species, bycatch and EPT species and to monitor changes if they occur. In relation to the retained species it seems to me that there is already one strategy in operation that the team could have mentioned. Section 3.4.5 states ‘harvesters are not allowed to retain other species than those that make up part of the management plan’. If this is enforced, it provides a strategy to ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species. In addition, the lack of reliable bycatch data has been dealt with by setting a condition. These various point have been addressed by a number of amendments to the text in the rationales for all these PI’s and one reduction in the score (PI 2.2.3), which led to the setting of the condition. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 226 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Indicator Review

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to information rationale used to improve the specific scoring issues and any relevant available been score this Indicator fishery’s documentation where possible. Please attach used to score support the given performance to additional pages if necessary. this Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

1.1.1

1.1.2

1.1.3

1.2.1

1.2.2

1.2.3

1.2.4

2.1.1

2.1.2 Yes No NA I think the argument that because there are no retained The team specify in table 2.1.2. that it was not species there is no need for a strategy is rather weak. necessary a formal management strategy to ensure that The team have, however, added text to the rationale for the fishery does not pose a risk to retained species. 100d regarding the signing of a commitment of intent. Moreover in the annual surveilance assessment the This goes some way to addressing these concerns but it CAB will determine the level of compliance of the does put the onus on the Cooerative to volunteer this agreement. information. Given the concludion that there is no strategy how can the fishery score any of the SG100 issues? See Ref 3567 above

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 227 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to information rationale used to improve the specific scoring issues and any relevant available been score this Indicator fishery’s documentation where possible. Please attach used to score support the given performance to additional pages if necessary. this Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.1.3 Yes No NA Are there any data apart from observations at the RBF To clarify this issue it was added to table 2.13 the workshop on which to score 100? To claim that there is following text: a strategy, let alone a comprehenisive strategy, it should at least be monitored and recorded. Information for similar fisheries carried out in Portuguese Sentence on commitment of intent added. estuaries and costal lagoons using the same harvesting techniques shows that there are no retained species due to the nature of harvest and the way the gear are operated (Gaspar et al., 2010).

2.2.1

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Since 100a does not state main bycatch species, this We agree with the reviewer, the paragraph was paragraph defining ‘main’ should appear earlier changed.

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Text for 80a amended, PI rescored at 75 and condition No need of clarification. added. I agree that this change is necessary

2.3.1

2.3.2

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 228 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to information rationale used to improve the specific scoring issues and any relevant available been score this Indicator fishery’s documentation where possible. Please attach used to score support the given performance to additional pages if necessary. this Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA Justification lacking in detail on exactly how the absence To clarify this issue it was added to table 2.3.3 the of ETP species was established other than from following text: observations made at the RBS workshop. Sentence on commitment of intent added. According to de Coo et al . (2012) of the species present in the TURF under analysis that predate on the target species none of them are considered ETP species. Moreover, SEO Birdlife mentioned by e-mail that in the area of the “Sociedade Cooperativa Ria de Arousa” does not occur any bird species considered as ETP.

2.4.1

2.4.2 Why have the references have been deleted from the The references were added. table?

2.4.3

2.5.1M Yes Yes NA List of scoring issues modified by including those We agree with the reviewer so no clarifications are concerned with the introduced species. needed. See Ref 3559

2.5.2M Yes Yes Yes List of scoring issues modified by including those We agree with the reviewer so no clarifications are concerned with the introduced species. needed. See Ref 3559. The fishery has been rescored, the score reduced to 75 and Condition 2 has been set. Supporting refences have been added to the table. I agree that the changes required by MSC have been carried out

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 229 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to information rationale used to improve the specific scoring issues and any relevant available been score this Indicator fishery’s documentation where possible. Please attach used to score support the given performance to additional pages if necessary. this Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

2.5.3M Yes Yes Yes List of scoring issues modified by including those We agree with the reviewer so no clarifications are concerned with the introduced species. See Ref 3559. needed. This has not made any difference to the score allocated but is now in line with MSC requirements.

3.1.1

3.1.2

3.1.3

3.1.4

3.2.1

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

3.2.5

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 230 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Peer Review 2 of the New Version! General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) This is an additional Peer Review of a revised version of the PCDR, following the MSC review on compliance with scheme requirements. In this review, comment is only made on Performance Indicators that have been modified and on the response of the Certification Body on MSC comments. Response to MSC Comments: Ref 3542 MSC comments that only one out of three scoring issues is met. If that is the case the score should be 85 since most issues are not fully met (CR 27.10.5.3). 90 CAB only be awarded when half of the issues are met. Conformity Assessment Body Response: The MSC comment is regarding the weight contribution and it has been corrected. The answer to Peer Reviewer comment regarding the Table 1.2.1 was done in the Ref 3558. Ref 3543 The tables have been adjusted on the basis of MSC comments. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3545 PSA Tables have been included as mentioned by MSC. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3546 A selectivity table is now included (again). Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3547 MSC argues that a fishery gear that is effective in catching the target species should attract a high risk score. This comment is correct. Within MSC selectivity is not understood as the ability not to catch undersized species. If you effectively can remove the target species from the system with your fishing gear there is a high risk that you could remove too much. Conformity Assessment Body Response: The comment from the Peer Reviewer is not correct, when the harvest methods used are highly selective the susceptibility for the selectivity attribute is low (scores 1) and therefore the post-capture attribute scores 3. Ref 3548 As I have already stated in my first review Post Capture Mortality for the target species should score high risk (=3). This score has now been awarded as a result of MSC comments. The remark that the team does not agree with this should be removed. Conformity Assessment Body Response: We agree with the Peer Review.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 231 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Ref 3551 MSC found a mistake and this has been corrected. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3553 The CAB has amended the text of paragraph 5.1 appropriately. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3554 As required by MSC.Chapter 5 has been amended so that there is now a clear indication from which point further Chain of Custody will be required. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3556 The response of the team to MSC comment is appropriate. There is no reason to score the impact of the fishery on the genetics of an introduced species. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3557 The scores have now been corrected. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3558 The MSC comment is mistaken since only one out of 3 scoring issues is met at 1.2.1. However when 1 out of 3 issues are met the score should be 85. It is not for the team to adapt MSC scoring rules. Conformity Assessment Body Response: The CAB has reviewed the MSC Requirements and had decided to score with an 85 the PI 1.2.1. Ref 3559 Bases on MSC comments the CAB has now performed the assessment of the fishery on the basis of the default assessment tree that was published on the MSC website. The result is that the rationales in 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 have changed. Since the team considered that scoring issue SG 80e of PI 2.5.2 was not met a score of 75 was awarded and a condition was set to eradicate the practice of sowing seed of Venerupis philippinarum from hatcheries to the wild. The response of the team to MSC comments is considered appropriate. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Ref 3567 The team still states in several of the scoring rationales that strategies to manage bycatch are not necessary. However the fishing methods used that result in very low bycatch levels can be considered as a strategy in itself. This could be added to the scoring rationales. Since the team now has added

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 232 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

that the client has committed himself to keep impacts on retained, bycatch and ETP low this means that there will be some continued effort to monitor inpacts so that any increase in risk levels would be detected. Conformity Assessment Body Response: No need of clarification. Performance Indicator Review

Performance Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body Response Indicator relevant information and/or condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to specific information rationale used to improve the scoring issues and any relevant documentation where available been score this Indicator fishery’s possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. used to score support the given performance to this Indicator? score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA)

1.1.1

1.1.2

1.1.3

1.2.1

1.2.2

1.2.3

1.2.4

1.2.5

2.1.1

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 233 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

2.1.2 Yes No N/A In stead of stating that a formal strategy is not necessary As the MSC Guidance established “To meet the it would be better to state that several strategies are in requirements at SG100 this may simply comprise a place to ensure low bycatch rates and high survival statement of intent about continuing to have no impact rates. This would surely be enough to defend a partial and ongoing monitoring to ensure that no impact occurs” strategy and a 80 score. To give a higher score it should be argued that a full strategy is in place.

2.1.3 Yes No N/A It should be added to the scoring rationale that the We agree with the Reviewer, the text was added. landing data show that there no retained species other than the target species. You can not simply state that no data are needed.

2.2.1

2.2.2 Yes No N/A The SG80a scoring issue is not presented correctly in We agree with the Reviewer, the arguments were the table. It should read: “There is a partial strategy in modified. place, if necessary, 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.”Thus “main”bycatch species is important here. If there are no main bycatch species SG80 is met. To score higher than 80 under the SG100 issues it should be argued that there is a strategy in place for all all bycatch species.

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes

2.3.1

2.3.2 Yes Yes N/A In stead of stating that a strategy is not necessary it Reference were added for de Coo and SEO birdlife that would be better to state that the methods used form an clarified the scoring. implicit strategy with the result that no ETP species are impacted.

2.3.3 Yes Yes N/A I would advice to state that all available informations The information was clarified. poits to the direction that ETP species are not impacted. Not relevant to state at this PI on information that a strategy is not needed.

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 234 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

2.4.1

2.4.2

2.4.3

2.5.1M Yes Yes N/A Bases on MSC comments the CAB has now performed No need of clarification. the assessment of the fishery on the basis of the default assessment tree (including PI’s for introduced species) that was published on the MSC website at the start of the certification. The result is that the scoring issues and the scoring rationales in 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 have changed. The comments of MSC have been correctly responded to.

2.5.2M Yes Yes Yes Since the team considered that scoring issue SG 80e of No need of clarification. PI 2.5.2 was not met a score of 75 was awarded and a condition was set to eradicate the practice of sowing seed of Venerupis philippinarum from hatcheries to the wild. The response of the team to MSC comments is considered appropriate.

2.5.3M Yes Yes Yes See PI 2.5.1. Response to MSC comments was No need of clarification. appropiate.

3.1.1

3.1.2

3.1.3

3.1.4

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 235 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

3.2.1

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

3.2.5

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 236 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions

Figure 22 List of those who attended the stakeholders’ meeting. Source ASI

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 237 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Figure 23. List of attendees to the meeting of the 26th of June

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 238 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Figure 24. List of attendees to the meeting of the 5th of September

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 239 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012

Figure 25 List of attendees to the meeting of the 5th of September

PCDR Clams and Cockle Fishery from Ria Arousa page 240 Date of issue: 19th March 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2012