Food Certification International Ltd Findhorn House Dochfour Business Centre Dochgarroch Inverness IV3 8GY United Kingdom

T: +44(0)1463 223 039 F: +44(0)1463 246 380 www.foodcertint.com

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION

Off-Site Surveillance Visit - Report for Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

2nd Annual Surveillance

November 2013

Prepared For: Heiploeg Group Prepared By: Food Certification International Ltd

Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

Assessment Data Sheet

Certified Fishery Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery Fishery Management Agency Fisheries Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Species Seabob (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) Heller 1862 Fishing Method Demersal twin rig trawl Certificate Code F-FCI-0018 Certification Date 06.10.2011 Certification Expiration Date 05.10.2016

Certification Body FOOD CERTIFICATION INTERNATIONAL Ltd Findhorn House, Dochfour Business Centre Dochgarroch, Inverness, IV3 8GY, Scotland, UK Tel: +44(0)1463 223 039 MSC Fisheries Department Email: [email protected] Web: www.foodcertint.com

Surveillance Stage: 2nd Annual Surveillance Surveillance Date: 30.10.2013

i version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

Contents

1. Introduction ...... iv 2. General Information ...... 1 2.1 Certificate Holder details ...... 1 2.2 General Background about the fishery ...... 1 2.2.1 Area Under Evaluation ...... 1 2.2.2 Fishery Ownership & Organisational Structure ...... 1 2.2.3 History of the Fishery ...... 1 3. Assessment Process ...... 2 3.1 Scope & History of the Assessment ...... 2 3.2 Details of 2nd Surveillance Audit Process...... 3 3.2.1 Determination of surveillance level ...... 3 3.2.2 Surveillance team details ...... 3 3.2.3 Date & Location of surveillance audit ...... 3 3.2.4 Stakeholder consultation & meetings ...... 3 3.3 Surveillance Standards ...... 4 3.3.1 MSC Standards, Requirements and Guidance used ...... 4 3.3.2 Scope regarding destructive fishing practices or controversial unilateral exemptions ...... 4 4. Results, Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 5 4.1 Discussion of Findings ...... 5 4.1.1 Changes in fleet structure or operation ...... 5 4.1.2 Changes in stock status and exploitation patterns ...... 5 4.1.3 Changes in ecosystem interaction or management ...... 5 4.1.4 Changes in management ...... 5 4.1.5 Catch data ...... 5 4.2 Reporting on Conditions ...... 6 4.2.1 Condition 1 ...... 6 4.2.2 Condition 2 ...... 8 4.2.3 Condition 3 ...... 11 4.2.4 Condition 4 ...... 13 4.2.5 Condition 5 ...... 15 4.2.6 Condition 6 ...... 17 4.3 Reporting on Recommendations...... 19 4.3.1 Improved estimation and recording of total fishery removals...... 19 4.3.2 Avoid mis-interpreting catch rate analysis ...... 19 4.3.3 New Fisheries Law and National Fisheries Management Plan ...... 19 4.3.4 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance at sea ...... 19 4.3.5 ETP encounter – summaries of data ...... 19 4.4 Conclusions ...... 20

ii version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

4.5 Status of Certification ...... 20 Appendix 1 – Written Submissions from Stakeholders ...... 21 Appendix 2 - Surveillance Plan ...... 22 Appendix 2.1 Rationale for determining surveillance score ...... 22 Appendix 3 - References ...... 23 Appendix 4 – Progress report – Ph D Studentship ...... 24

iii version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

1. Introduction The purpose of the annual Surveillance Report is fourfold: 1. to establish and report on whether or not there have been any material changes to the circumstances and practices affecting the original complying assessment of the fishery; 2. to monitor the progress made to improve those practices that have been scored as below “good practice” (a score of 80 or above) but above “minimum acceptable practice” (a score of 60 or above) – as captured in any “conditions” raised and described in the Public Report and in the corresponding Action Plan drawn up by the client; 3. to monitor any actions taken in response to any (non-binding) “recommendations” made in the Public Report; 4. to re-score any Performance Indicators (PIs) where practice or circumstances have materially changed during the intervening year, focusing on those PIs that form the basis of any “conditions” raised. Please note: The primary focus of this surveillance audit is assess changes made in the previous year. For a complete picture, this report should be read in conjunction with the Public Certification Report for this fishery assessment.

iv version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

2. General Information

2.1 Certificate Holder details Certificate holder: Heiploeg Group Address: Heiploeg BV, Panserweg 14, NL – 9974 SL Zoutkamp, Netherlands

p/a Morubel NV Ankerstraat 2 BE- 8400 Oostende Belgium

Contact Name: Chris Meskens Tel: +32 593 228 68 Email: [email protected] Web: www.heiploeggroup.com

2.2 General Background about the fishery

2.2.1 Area Under Evaluation The fishery takes place entirely within Suriname’s territorial waters (FAO Statistical Area 31). From an ecosystem perspective, this is considered to be in the North Brazilian LME. Within Surinamese waters, the fishery is further restricted to a permitted fishing zone between a line nominally equivalent to 10 fathom depth contour to the line nominally equivalent to 18 fathom depth contour. The inshore extent of the permitted fishing grounds is roughly 20km from shore (varying between approximately 15 – 35km offshore, depending on seabed profile). Inshore of this zone is the artisanal fishing zone, where fishing with mobile gears is prohibited. The stock is managed on the basis of Surinamese national legislation, informed by the work of national and international stock assessment scientists operating through stock assessment meetings conducted by the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM). Within Suriname the fishery is managed by the Fisheries Department of the Suriname Government (LVV), according to the Suriname seabob Fishery Management Plan.

2.2.2 Fishery Ownership & Organisational Structure The client for this certification is the Heiploeg Group. The client group involves 2 fishing operations in Suriname: Heiploeg Suriname (formerly Guiana Seafoods) and SAIL (Suriname American Industries Limited). Heiploeg Suriname and SAIL owns all vessels covered by this assessment.

2.2.3 History of the Fishery The Suriname seabob fishery is a relatively recent fishery, beginning with the licensing of 5 boats in 1995. The fleet size grew to a peak of 30 licenses (although typically some licenses remained inactive on ‘standby’), occurring periodically since 2001 and 2008. Since 2008 there has been a 33% reduction in licenses, with 20 licenses being issued for the 2010 since then a further 2 licenses have been issued. Since 2010, the level of fishing has been controlled by means of harvest control rule with the potential to limit days at sea.

1 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

3. Assessment Process

3.1 Scope & History of the Assessment The fishery originally entered the MSC assessment process in June 2009 and was finally certified in November 2011. The original assessment report contains all the details of the original assessment and fully justified scores and should be referred to for further information and background. The original assessment report is available to download at http://www.msc.org/track-a- fishery/certified/western-central-atlantic/suriname_atlantic_seabob_shrimp/assessment-downloads- 1/Suriname_Seabob_PCR_Nov2011.pdf . This is the 2nd surveillance audit for the Suriname Seabob fishery and takes place as per the intended routine of surveillance. Fig 1 - Allocation of weighted scores at Sub-criteria, Criteria and Principle levels

Principle 1 – Stock Status / Harvest Control Rules

1.1.1 Stock status 80 1.1.2 Outcome (status) Reference Points 90 1.1.3 Stock Rebuilding n/a 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy 85 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 90 Management 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 75 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 85

Principle 2 – Wider Ecosystem Impacts

2.1.1 Outcome (status) 85 2.1.2 Retained Species Management 80 2.1.3 Information 85 2.2.1 Outcome (status) 70 2.2.2 Bycatch Management 85 2.2.3 Information 80 2.3.1 Outcome (status) 80 2.3.2 ETP Species Management 85 2.3.3 Information 80 2.4.1 Outcome (status) 80 2.4.2 Habitats Management 80 2.4.3 Information 75 2.5.1 Outcome (status) 80 2.5.2 Ecosystem Management 80 2.5.3 Information 75

Principle 3 – Management / Governance

3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 85 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 80 Governance & Policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 80 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80 3.2.2 Decision making processes 75 Fishery-specific 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 75 Management System 3.2.4 Research plan 90 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 80 Sourced from original assessment

2 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

As a result of the assessment, 6 conditions of certification were raised by the assessment team, and maintenance of the MSC certificate is contingent on the Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery moving to comply with these conditions within the time-scales set at the time the certificate was issued. In addition, 5 recommendations were made which, whilst not obligatory, the client is encouraged to act upon within the spirit of the certification. These conditions and recommendations are detailed in Section 4.2.1 of this report. Date certified: 08.11.2011 Certificate expiry: 07.11.2016

3.2 Details of 2nd Surveillance Audit Process

3.2.1 Determination of surveillance level Please see Appendix 2

3.2.2 Surveillance team details The original assessment team for this fishery assessment comprised of Tristan Southall, who acted as team leader and Principle 3 specialist; Susan Singh-Renton who was responsible for evaluation of Principle 1 and Nick Pfeiffer who was responsible for evaluation of Principle 2. The off-site surveillance visit was carried out by Tristan Southall, Susan Singh-Renton and Nick Pfeiffer. The Report Leader/Team Leader was Tristan Southall.

3.2.3 Date & Location of surveillance audit Off-site – 30th October, 2013.

3.2.4 Stakeholder consultation & meetings Although this surveillance audit was conducted remotely it was informed by a comprehensive range of documents, including research reports, meeting minutes, details of legislative changes, details on landings and on-going CPUE calculation, IUU summaries, supporting photographs and government reports. In addition, conference calls were held between team members and members of both the client group and the Suriname Fisheries Department. The approximate structure of these calls was to initially summarise changes in the last 12 months in terms of operations, environment, governance etc., before addressing progress against each condition and recommendation in turn. Finally all stakeholders were invited to provide any additional thoughts or concerns. No concerns were raised and the outcome of these calls forms the basis for the conclusions in section 4 of this report. Conference calls were held with the following key stakeholders: Fig 2 – Stakeholders consulted with as part of second annual surveillance audit. Name Organisation Role Ralph Sanders Heiploeg Client Chris Meskens Heiploeg Client Dr Rene Lieveld LVV- Fisheries Department Fisheries Director Kishen Rattan LVV- Fisheries Department VMS Officer Ranjet Soekhradj LVV- Fisheries Department Statistician (HCR oversight) Muriel Wirjodirjo LVV- Fisheries Department Chair Seabob Working Group Mario Yspol LVV- Fisheries Department Research scientist

In additional, all previously identified stakeholders in the fishery were alerted via e-mail to the surveillance process and provided with the opportunity to either submit documentation for the consideration of the team or request a meeting with the team. In total some 34 stakeholders are included on the Suriname Seabob stakeholder list. No submissions were received and no stakeholders requested to speak with the team. The interest of any other stakeholder, not previously identified, was solicited through the postings on the MSC website.

3 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

Documents referred to See Appendix 4.

3.3 Surveillance Standards

3.3.1 MSC Standards, Requirements and Guidance used This surveillance audit was carried out according to the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v1.2.

3.3.2 Scope regarding destructive fishing practices or controversial unilateral exemptions There have been no changes in terms of fishing practices which would lead in a change in status of scope and eligibility. No destructive fishing practices or controversial unilateral exemptions have been introduced in this fishery – therefore the fishery remains eligible and within the scope of the MSC scheme.

4 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

4. Results, Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Discussion of Findings

4.1.1 Changes in fleet structure or operation There have been no changes in fleet structure or operation since the last surveillance audit.

4.1.2 Changes in stock status and exploitation patterns The most published stock assessment was carried out by the CRFM Shrimp and Groundfish working group in 2012. The 2013 stock assessment is not yet published. The 2012 assessment indicates that the stock is not overfished (B/BMSY > 1.0) and overfishing is not occurring (CRFM 2012). These results remain broadly the same as those from the last stock assessment in 2011 and appears robust to likely levels of artisanal landings. It is expected that data from actual sampling of artisanal fishery operations will be available in time for the next assessment. The stock remains above the trigger and target reference point.

4.1.3 Changes in ecosystem interaction or management There have been no changes since the time of the last surveillance to the ecosystem interactions, or environmental management, although there has been considerable progress on enhancing the information basis for environmental interaction as a result of conditions at the time of the original assessment – see later conclusions in section 4.

4.1.4 Changes in management This has been a busy year for the Suriname Fisheries Department. The Project reported on in the last surveillance audit to invest in coastguard enforcement infrastructure is now well underway, with enforcement vessels and helicopter now on station1. This will be commented on in more detail later in the report in relation to the conditions and recommendations. In addition the Government has been involved in an ACP funded project to produce a new national fisheries management plan, which is currently at the final draft stage. Careful consideration (and consultation) has been given to ensuring that the Seabob Management Plan dovetails with this document to ensure complimentarily of objectives and actions. This therefore does not change the legal status of the Seabob Management Plan.

4.1.5 Catch data

Total TAC for most recent fishing year: No TAC Unit of Certification share of the total TAC established for the fishery in most recent fishing year*

UoC 1 No TAC

Client share of the total TAC established for the fishery in most recent fishing year: No TAC

2011 = 7,100t Total greenweight catch taken by the client group in the two most recent calendar 2 years: 2012 = 7,195t

* To be added into MSC database for each Unit of Certification Source: Fishery client

1 http://www.dwtonline.com/de-ware-tijd/2013/09/02/kustwacht-geintroduceerd-wetgeving-bij-parlement/ (assessors were provided with a translated version of this article). 2 Based on LVV landings statistics & HCR CPUE calculation document.

5 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

4.2 Reporting on Conditions

4.2.1 Condition 1

Condition 1 Good Information on all other fishery removals from the stock

Performance 1.2.3 - Information / monitoring Indicators: Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Score: 75

Timelines Year 1: (i) A fully comprehensive and practical sampling plan for the routine monitoring of total seabob removals by the artisanal, penaeid, and other relevant fisheries. (ii) A comprehensive and practical plan of action to address estimation of IUU seabob fishing activities, including catches, and with key partners identified, as required. Resulting score: 75 Year 2: Demonstrate that sampling and estimation work both for artisanal and IUU is underway. Resulting score: 75 Year 3: Demonstrate that sampling and estimation work both for artisanal and IUU is continuing and complete estimations for 1 year are available. Resulting score: 75 Year 4: (iii) Demonstrate an expanded fisheries database that include quality data on all fishery removals, and demonstrate how this data is effectively incorporated of these data into seabob assessments. (iv) Demonstrate an expanded fisheries database to include relevant data on IUU fishing activities and adequate consideration of these data in seabob assessment and HCR updates/ revisions. Resulting score: 80 Year 5: Outline plan for routine an on-going further estimation of IUU and artisanal catches to inform future assessments. Resulting score: 80

Summary of At present, there is absence of routine monitoring of fishery removals (of seabob) conducted issues by the artisanal and the penaeid trawl fleets that appear to have undergone some changes in recent years. Additionally, there is an unknown but possibly notable amount of Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) seabob fishing activities conducted by foreign trawling vessels. These IUU fishing activities have been confirmed by more than one information source, including fishers, and are believed to be taking place on a regular basis.

Suggested In order to satisfy this scoring issue, there has to be representative sampling of other fishery Action removals, particularly by the artisanal and penaeid trawl fleets, as these fleets operate in areas of known seabob distribution, and may catch notable amounts of seabob at different stages of its life cycle. The extent of IUU fishing activities directed at seabob also has to be verified by the national fisheries authority, perhaps working in collaboration with the flag states concerned and with independent and reliable key informants. To estimate IUU fishery removals, it may be possible to compare national statistics of relevant flag states, e.g. reported landings with export data, and reported landings with import data recorded by the market countries. The present efforts of the industry to assist with at-sea monitoring activities may have some potential to contribute to the estimation of IUU fishing activities, but this initiative in itself is insufficient to meet the condition.

Progress against interim milestones Progress against condition 1 has continued apace since the time of the first surveillance audit. There are several sources of other fishery removals – artisanal catch, catch in other trawl sectors and catch from IUU fishing. Details of steps taken to estimate each of these are set out below.

6 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

A survey of seabob catches in the artisanal sector has been conducted, coordinated by LVV research staff and paid for by the LVV budget (Yspol 2012 & Babb-Echteld 2013). The survey has been designed to cope with the variability in the artisanal fishery due to moon cycles, tides, flow rates and season which all have a big influence on productivity. The survey also examined data on sales for the previous season (dry weight) and frequency of visits to the buyer. This was corroborated with information on typical number of fishing days – taking into account the variables listed above. Finally the main buyers were also consulted to enable further cross referenced checks. It is intended that the survey will be repeated after a couple of years. The results of this survey have been presented to the CRFM Shrimp and Groundfish Working Group of 2013 and included in the updated assessment. Although artisanal catches are now believed to be higher than originally estimated, this has not significantly changed the overall perception of the stock. Additionally the department has undertaken analysis of data to inform estimates of both the amount of removals of seabob in the offshore shrimp and finfish trawl fleet, and possible IUU catches of Seabob (Babb-Echteld 2013). This provides a more quantitative basis for total removals to be included in the seabob assessment. Based on data obtained during surveys conducted in earlier time periods, catches of seabob in the offshore shrimp and finfish trawl have been estimated to be negligible. A first analysis of IUU activities indicates that there is a low overall level, and this is expected to reduce further with the increased coastguard presence in the west of the EEZ. Remedial actions Estimation of IUU activities should be extended beyong consideration of only VMS infraction data and could be improved through cooperation arrangements with neighbouring countries with similar fishing interests, and comparison of import and export data. Changes to condition None Updated status On Target

7 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

4.2.2 Condition 2

Condition 2 Ensure main bycatch species are within biologically based limits

Performance 2.2.1 – Status Indicators: The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups. Score: 70 Year 1 – have implemented a programme of on-board data collection that will provide far greater Timelines levels of quantitative, qualitative and length data in respect of bycatch of elasmobranchs. Resulting score: 70 Year 2 – provide summary data in relation to elasmobranch bycatch. Provide data in relation to the effectiveness of BRD’s and TED’s in releasing elasmobranch species from seabob trawls. Have improved understanding of the post capture survival rates of ray species that have been returned to the water alive. Resulting score: 70, potentially increased to 80 depending on outcomes of research (based on changes to PSA score). Year 3 – have conducted an analysis of the ray bycatch and effort data that will allow the impact of the fishery to be assessed. Resulting score: 70 Year 4 – Demonstrate that data generated in being used to inform an assessment of stock status, and the determination of reference points. Resulting score: 70 Year 5 – demonstrate, with reference to the results of research and assessment that ray species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits and that the results of the assessment have shaped the development of appropriate management to ensure that the fishery does not hinder the recovery of ray populations. Resulting score: 80 This condition can only be closed out by demonstrating that bycaught ray species are within Summary of biologically based limits or by developing strategies that will mitigate against impacts of the issues fishery on ray and other species. Ray species are particularly vulnerable to impact from bycatch in fisheries on account of aspects of their life history. The seabob fishery is known to interact with several species. Due to data limitations, it has not been possible to categorically state that the most vulnerable bycaught species (Longnose ray and Smooth butterfly ray) are within biologically based limits and that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the status of these populations. The client companies are encouraged to engage in further research with respect to bycatch Suggested levels by collecting data on bycatch levels of the main species of concern. A means for achieving Action this is has recently been incorporated into the Code of Practice, which now requires recording and reporting of all bycaught ray species. It is expected to take some time to generate data and it is reasonable to expect the fishery to demonstrate that the programme has been implemented as intended and is generating data by the first surveillance audit. In addition to collection of data from within the fishery, further development and refinement of the overall bycatch reduction strategy including on-going testing and improvement of bycatch reduction devices should be prioritised. This strategy should pay particular attention to reduction of ray bycatch and it would be beneficial to better understand the effectiveness of TEDS and BRD’s in the context of releasing vulnerable species from trawl nets. Additional research should also focus on determining the likely post capture survival rates of ray that are returned to the sea while apparently still alive. In particular data that relates to the survival of larger specimens would be valuable as such specimens are of particular reproductive importance.

Progress against interim milestones There has been measured but clear progress towards meeting with the requirements of the annual milestones for the second surveillance audit. Evidence has been provided that indicates recording of bycatch numbers of long-nose and smooth butterfly ray. Although not verifiable, the data at least confirms that there is some interaction between the fishery and at least two ray species during most, if not all, hauls. The data are collected and compiled by skippers in accordance with the undertaking to record interactions with bycatch and ETP species. During the first surveillance audit, disparities in recording of bycatch of rays by numbers on some vessels and simply as present/not present on others were noted. This has now been addressed and evidence provided in the form of ETP interaction recording sheets by the client for a random sample of fishing trips details the nature and level of interaction (capture) with rays by number.

8 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

In terms of progress however, perhaps of greater relevance are the results of a directed study undertaken during 2012/13 in an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of turtle excluder devices (TEDS) at reducing interaction (bycatch) of ray species in the seabob fishery. The assessment team were presented with a report of investigations carried out during 2012/13 by T Wilhelms, J Depestele, A de Backer and K Hostens of Institut Landbouw en Visserij in Oostende in conjunction with Heiploeg Suriname. The report detailed the methodology and findings of a series of fishing trials carried out onboard Heiploeg Suriname seabob vessels, which were aimed at evaluating ray bycatch during commercial seabob fishing operations. The trials evaluated the catch of rays in standard seabob trawls (those fitted with TEDS and BRD’s) against seabob trawls with no TED fitted but having a BRD fitted (control nets). The trials took place over 8 fishing days, spread over the fishing season. Sixty-five successful catch- comparison hauls with an average duration of 1h16min were carried out, catching a total of 3181 rays of five different species: Smooth butterfly ray (Gymnura micrura), Longnose stingray (Dasyatis guttata), Smalleyed round stingray (Urotrygon microphthalmum), Sharpsnout stingray (Dasyatis geijskesi) and Cownose ray (Rhinoptera bonasus). Overall, a 36%-reduction in number of rays was observed in nets fitted with TEDS compared to the control-net (no TED fitted). In addition, the rays caught in the TED nets were on average also 21% smaller than the ones occurring in the control-net. As such, the TED-net seemed to exclude larger- sized individuals, suggesting the observed by-catch reductions were the result of escape through TEDs rather than BRDs. Because BRDs allow small sized fish to escape the trawl, which would theoretically cause a relative size-increase in the TED-net instead of the observed decrease. It was therefore determined that the BRD was not causing exclusion of rays and that the TEDs were effective at eliminating larger specimens. The observed reduction in ray catch rate was most pronounced for D. geijskesi, with the TED net catching 77% less by number. Although this species appeared quite rarely in catches, it was generally larger in size. Therefore the study suggests that D. geijskesi escaped through the TED-escape opening in TED nets at a high rate. Only the smaller individuals (mean body width 42 cm) appear to be able to pass between the bars of the TED and end up in the codend. Bycatch rate of D. guttata was reduced by 40%. The mean body width, but especially the size range of individuals caught in the TED net was reduced compared to the control-net. Analysis of the data revealed increasing exclusion occurring for individuals from 20 cm body width and more, with rays larger than 40 cm escaping nearly 100% of he time. Although bycatch of G. micrura was reduced by 32%, neither size range nor mean body width was markedly different in the TED-net. However, a steady increase in exclusion rate with increasing size is apparent. The analysis demonstrated a very different exclusion-at-size effect than that observed for D. guttata. While at a body width of, say, 50 cm nearly all D. guttata escape from the trawl, approximately 35% of the G. micrura catch is still found in the TED-net. The study postulates that this difference in outcomes probably relates to the fact that the former species is rigid and heavily built compared to the latter, which may be more flexible, increasing the possibility of passing between the bars of a TED. The observed increasing exclusion rate with increasing body size for D. guttata and G. micrura confirms the escape of larger rays through TEDs. However, for both species, smaller individuals (less than 40 cm) made up the major share of the by-catch. They are not able to escape from the trawls at high rates, which is also seen for U. microphthalmum, a small species that showed no exclusion. Thus, although TEDs seem efficient in excluding larger rays, small rays actually make up the bulk of the by-catch, being either small species (U. microphthalmum) or young individuals of other species. At present, no population estimates of rays in the area are available. Therefore, the impact of the seabob trawl fishery on rays remains unclear. In a general context, rays occur quite abundantly where this fishery takes place. TEDs seem to provide best protection for D. geijskesi, as mainly relatively large individuals occurred which showed high exclusion rates. The study concludes however that seabob trawls as they are used now (i.e. with TEDs), do not seem to be an appropriate solution for protecting D. guttata and G. micrura as mainly smaller individuals of both species are prevalent in the area and these specimens appear to be unable to escape through TEDs. The study also suggests that for the same reason, bycatch of U. microphthalmum is not reduced by the use of TEDs. In summary, the study shows that the selectivity devices currently in use mainly work for large-bodied rays and that further effort to reduce ray bycatch could be directed towards avoiding the capture of small-sized individuals as well as larger specimens.

9 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

It is suggested that a first step in this direction would be to test alternative selectivity devices, such as ‘Nordmore-grids’ – grids that have a fine bar spacing might be interesting in this respect, as they successfully reduced by-catch in a Brazilian seabob trawl fishery. The study also clearly restates the uncertainty that exists with respect to the consequences of the level of interaction between the fisheries and ray species. Importantly however, the study provides a clear verification of the true level of interaction through the carrying out of directed sampling programme aimed at collecting qualitative and quantitative information. The client informed the team of intentions to evaluate during 2014 the potential of Nordmore grids fitted to seabob trawls for reducing capture rates of small rays in particular. The fact that this work has been undertaken and results have been available for the second surveillance potentially places the condition ahead of target, some of the third annual surveillance audit annual milestones having been met. However, there has been less progress in relation to the 2nd annual milestone requirement that stated the fishery should improve understanding of the post capture survival rates of ray species that have been returned to the water alive. The client has been reminded that some evidence in relation to post capture survival of released rays will be beneficial in terms of estimating likely consequences of the level of interaction. While carrying dedicated research in this regard within the seabob fishery would be very beneficial, it is recognised that there are formidable practical difficulties associated with conducting research of this type. Nevertheless, a review of other published (and unpublished) research in this regard could prove beneficial and would undoubtedly aid in understanding the likely implications of capture for specimens, and thereby the role of non-retained bycatch in relation to population trends for affected species. Overall the condition is deemed to be on target, however the client is very strongly encouraged to review future annual milestones for this condition in order to ensure that the condition remains on target at 3rd surveillance. Remedial actions None required Changes to condition None Updated status On target

10 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

4.2.3 Condition 3

Condition 3 Nature, distribution and vulnerability of main seabed habitats

Performance 2.4.3 – Information / Monitoring Indicators: Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types. Score: 75

Timelines Year 1: Show plan of how seabed habitat information will be collected. Resulting score: 75 Year 2: Show evidence that seabed habitat information is being collected. Resulting score: 75 Year 3: Show evidence that seabed habitat information is continuing to be collected – at a more refined level than at year 2, with supporting ground truthing. Resulting score: 75 Year 4: compare data generated in relation to seabed communities of areas that are trawled for seabob with similar data for untrawled areas of seabed, such as are to be found in the waters of neighbouring French Guiana. Resulting score: 75 Year 5: provide updated seabed habitat mapping for the areas fished by the seabob fleet, at a level of detail appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery, such that this can inform future management. Resulting score: 80

Summary of No recent data were available to the assessment team with respect to the nature and issues distribution of the main seabed habitats occurring in the areas where the seabob fishery takes place. The assessment team were reliant on data from the 1960’s in order to make a judgement on the likely impacts of trawling activity on the seabed. As the fishery utilises trawling gears that are known to have significant potential to impact seabed habitats and cause long-term harm, an appropriate and precautionary approach to managing the fisheries potential to impact seabed habitat should be informed by data at a level of detail that is appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery. The nature of impacts is normally assessed using biological criteria (e.g. effects on fauna and benthic infauna abundance and diversity, presence and prevalence of biogenic reef forming communities etc.). No detailed data have been available to the team that would allow the comparison of fished and unfished areas for the purposes of identifying the nature and scale of any seabed impacts. Such data should be available in order to support the management of impacts on the seabed.

Suggested It is reasonable and appropriate to expect the fishery to assist in production of much improved Action seabed mapping. This could be restricted to the areas where seabob are targeted and can be based on the use of appropriate technologies and research expertise. Undertakings in this regard should have clear objectives that should as a minimum seek to collect bathymetric, seabed sediment composition and habitat information, while also identifying areas that are particularly sensitive to trawling impacts. The latter is likely to require the collection of biological information to describe the biological communities associated with the seafloor in the areas fished. It is suggested that the possibility of undertaking this research in conjunction with French Guianese should be considered and investigated if appropriate.

Progress against interim milestones At the time of the first surveillance audit it was noted that there had been significant progress with respect to meeting the first and second annual milestones set for this condition. The fishery had engaged with the University of Ghent and the Belgian Institute for Agriculture and Fisheries Research (ILVO) in the context of planning and obtaining funding for a PhD studentship entitled ‘Towards sustainable management of the seabob fishery (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) in the shallow coastal zone of Surinam’. Funding was secured during 2011 and the project was underway by late 2011. A strategic programme of research has been devised which has as its main focus, investigations into the ecosystem role of seabob in the waters of Surinam, as well as the impacts of the fishery on the

11 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery demersal seabed habitats in areas where the fishery operates. At sea sampling had commenced during early 2012 and this clearly put the condition ahead of target as the first annual surveillance audit required that the fishery show a plan of how seabed habitat information will be collected. In the circumstances however, because the research work had already commenced and some interim results were made available to the assessment team, the condition progress was deemed to be ahead of target, meeting all of the second annual surveillance milestones that required the fishery to demonstrate that that seabed habitat information is being collected. Evidence of further research work undertaken during the second year of certification indicated that at sea sampling of seabed sediments continued between August 2012 and January 2013 on a bi- monthly basis. In addition to this, research effort concentrated on measuring river discharge rates and the analysis of samples of epibenthic fauna (ongoing). The condition remains on target and it is noted that the research plan submitted to the surveillance team proposes to produce two separate research papers on the spatio-temporal distribution of demersal fish and epibenthic organisms in Surinamese waters.

Remedial actions None required. Changes to condition None. Updated status On target.

12 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

4.2.4 Condition 4

Condition 4 Main functions of the components of the ecosystem are known

Performance 2.5.3 – Information / Monitoring Indicators: There is inadequate knowledge of the role of seabob within the ecosystem. The role that climatic and oceanographic events and patterns, as well as anthropogenic activities may have on the ecosystem are also not well understood. Score: 75

Timelines Year 1: Show plan of how ecosystem information and research will be undertaken. Resulting score: 75 Year 2: Show evidence that ecosystem research is underway with evidence of information collected. Resulting score: 75 Year 3: Show evidence that ecosystem research is continuing– at a more refined level than at year 2, with initial results and work on modelling underway. Resulting score: 75 Year 4: Demonstrate an ecosystem model, which can show the role of seabob in the ecosystem. Resulting score: 75 Year 5: Show that the outputs of the ecosystem research and modelling are complete, in such a way as to enable conclusions to be taken into consideration in the management of the seabob fishery. Resulting score: 80

Summary of Based on current knowledge and levels of information, it has not been possible to be certain issues about the nature and scale of all implications that the industrial scale removal of seabob may have for the ecosystem. Food web dynamics and species inter-relationships for Surinamese waters are not well researched and the function and ecosystem role of the target species is not known at a level of detail that is appropriate to the scale of the fishery. Present levels of information are not yet considered adequate to inform or enhance an ecosystem approach to managing the seabob fishery. An understanding of the main climatic/oceanographic/anthropogenic variables that can produce major changes in the ecosystem also needs to be developed.

Suggested It is suggested that targeted investigations are carried out that seek to enhance understanding Action of the role of seabob in the ecosystem. This will facilitate further research into the effects of the fishery on the target stock and the implications of this for other species and overall food web dynamics. The possibility of carrying out some ecosystem modelling investigations using established techniques should be considered. Investigations or undertakings made in response to this condition should also seek to develop or contribute in a significant way to an understanding of the main climatic/oceanographic/anthropogenic variables that can produce major changes in the ecosystem also needs to be developed

Progress against interim milestones At the time of the first surveillance audit it was noted that there had been significant progress with respect to meeting the first and second annual milestones set for this condition. Progress towards addressing the requirements of this condition during the first year of certification involved the commencement of research intended to investigate the ecosystem role of seabob and the importance of the seabob as a food source for higher trophic status organisms. The work was being undertaken a PhD student and fishing crews and staff of Heiploeg Suriname in co-operation with ILVO and the University of Ghent. The research project had been strategically designed in order to address the issues raised in a number of conditions attached to the seabob certification. Research work was already underway, some results were available. The condition was therefore deemed to be ahead of target, with second annual milestones being met.

13 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

The third annual surveillance audit annual milestone states that the fishery should provide evidence that ecosystem research is continuing– at a more refined level than at year 2, with initial results and work on modelling underway. Evidence provided to the surveillance team includes two scientific papers prepared as thesis in support of  the importance of the Atlantic seabob as prey for marine fish in Suriname (University of Ghent)  diet of Atlantic seabob Xiphopenaeus kroyeri in Suriname (University of Suriname) In the first of these, the relative importance of seabob in the diet of two marine fishes found in Suriname is studied by analysisng the stomach contents of fish collected during sampling undertaken as part of the overall project ‘Towards sustainable management of the seabob fishery (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) in the shallow coastal zone of Surinam’. The study examines the stomach contents of catfish (Bagre bagre) and Rake stardrum (Stellifer rastrifer) using samples collected during the research work of T. Willems and fishing crews of Heiploeg Suriname. In the second study, the author Nyasha Nanseerà Dakriet of the Anton de Kom University of Suriname examines the diet of seabob by analysing the contents of seabob stomachs. The two studies verify the feeding habits of seabob established in other areas in previous studies while also confirming that seabob is an important prey item for some marine fishes in Surinamese waters. Further research work is on-going and more studies, analysis and and publications are planned. An update to the project ‘Towards sustainable management of the seabob fishery (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) in the shallow coastal zone of Surinam’ is provided in Appendix 1. There is sufficient progress to consider that the condition remains ahead of target.

Remedial actions None required. Changes to condition None Updated status Ahead of target.

14 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

4.2.5 Condition 5

Condition 5 Explanations for management action 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes Performance Indicators: The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives. Score: 75

Timelines Year 1: Show a plan of how clear and transparent explanations supporting significant management action should be provided to stakeholders. Resulting score: 75 Year 2: Show evidence that clear and transparent explanations supporting significant management action should be provided to stakeholders is underway. Resulting score: 75 Year 3: Show evidence that clear and transparent explanations supporting significant management action should be provided to stakeholders is continuing– at a more refined level than at year 2. Resulting score: 75 Year 4: Demonstrate the evidence of clear and transparent explanations supporting significant management action which should be provided to stakeholders is continuing– at a more refined level than at year 3. Resulting score: 75 Year 5: Show that the outputs of communication with stakeholders are complete, in such a way as to enable conclusions to be taken into consideration in the management of the seabob fishery. Resulting score: 80

Summary of There appears to be the potential for unhelpful confusion, rumour and speculation to be issues created about the reasons behind decisions, and indeed whether decisions have even been taken, due to a lack of clear explanation and transparency. Clear explanation is particularly important where fishery management is embracing new approaches, such as exploitation rate determined by application of a harvest control rule informed by novel stock assessment techniques. Where management decisions are based on best available information, there is little reason why clear explanations should not be provided by the management authority. Explanation (in particular of significant management decisions – such as reduction in fleet size) should also be extended to all stakeholders (including fishermen).

Suggested In order to satisfy this scoring issue management should consider how best stakeholders can Action be kept well informed of the reasons for management actions, or provide justification when other management actions are not taken. The publication of a national fishery management plan should provide useful strategic direction in support of management decisions, but the recommendations of working groups and advisory committees should also be open to scrutiny, in a transparent and easily accessible manner.

Progress against interim milestones Progress has continued in this area since the time of the last surveillance audit. Most notably the Seabob Working Group has now published an annual report which is publically available on the Fisheries Department website (Seabob Working Group 2012). This is a significant step forward. The seabob working group continues to function well, with good attendance, effective chairing and a good record on implementing action points between meetings. Undoubtedly the seabob working group plays a vital role in communicating explanations for management actions to a wide range of stakeholders – not least the fishing companies and fishermen themselves, but also NGOs who are observers on the seabob working group. In relation to the tighter and more consistent application of VMS sanctions (condition 6), the letter written to all fishing companies and fishing sector representatives is a further example of management decisions being clearly communicated to all relevant stakeholders and there was evidence that this has been clearly understood by those that are affected by it.

15 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

Since last surveillance audit considerable work has been undertaken to redraft the national fisheries Management Plan. This has been widely communicated and there has been a process of consultation. The Suriname Seafood Association (Raad van Overleg) remains an effective forum for communicating management decisions, and bringing stakeholders into the management decision making process. This includes processers and catchers and is intended to bring industry and government closer together. However, links with the artisanal sector remain a challenge as the sector is less well organised or represented, but the fisheries department is now actively trying to establish better links with the artisanal sector and assisting them in organising them. Remedial actions None Changes to condition none Updated status On Target

16 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

4.2.6 Condition 6

Condition 6 Consistent application of sanctions to deal with non-compliance 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Performance Indicators: Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management measures are enforced and complied with. Score: 75

Timelines Year 1 – demonstrate (through meeting minutes) that discussion is underway of how best to approach the weaknesses highlighted in the report, Resulting score: 75 Year 2 – Demonstrate that a clearly defined, legally binding and unequivocal incremental scale of sanctions, and consequences of different infringements is in place for the fishery. Resulting score: 75 Year 3 – Demonstrate clear evidence of consistent application of sanctions. Resulting score: 80 Years 4 & 5 – Continued evidence of robust and consistent application of sanctions, leading to high levels of compliance.

Summary of There is a clear ability to apply sanctions (with unambiguous legislative foundation) but the issues scale of incremental penalties (verbal warning, written warning, fine, licence) is not well understood and rarely consistently applied, enforcement letters / warnings are ineffective, and fines rarely result. For example, there was evidence of an unclear approach to the process of sanction application for VMS infringement (either technical faults or area infringements). Fishing companies were able to give a simple written explanation of the reason for apparent infringements and escape penalty – even a verbal warning. This undermines the effectiveness of the deterrence and also undermines fisher’s confidence in the compliance of others.

Suggested In order to satisfy this scoring issue it is important for the fishery to move to a point where all Action stakeholders have a clear understanding of the system and scale of sanctions, according to infringement type and frequency. Stakeholders should not only understand this, but also have confidence that it is applied as intended and effective and confidence inspiring. Skippers should be certain that any infringement will not only be highly likely to be detected, but that infringement will result in appropriate sanction. It is not thought that any legislative or regulatory steps are required to achieve this, simply a change in interpretation, communication and application of existing regulations.

Progress against interim milestones As reported at the time of the last surveillance, The Director of Fisheries has undertaken to fully clarify the incremental sanctions for infringements. All fishing companies have been written to, to ensure that this is clearly communicated and understood. After a warning letter, there will be 3 incrementally increasing fines, and any further offence after this will result in the license being revoked. A number of fines have been issued and one foreign vessel (not seabob) has already had its license revoked, and this has sent a strong signal that sanctions will be consistently applied. The Director of Fisheries has confirmed that there have been no sanctions required for the Seabob fleet in the last 12 months. The VMS officers remain confident that the system was working well and any infringements would result in definite, immediate and consistently applied sanction, providing an effective deterrent. Excuses such as engine failure leading to encroachment into the inshore waters or power failures leading to a cessation of VMS signal are no longer accepted although there remains scope for any immediately reported legitimate problems to be investigated in more details before fines are issued. Additionally, the overall level of enforcement coverage has been greatly increased in the last 12 months with the arrival of Coastguard patrol vessels. Furthermore, although not directly relevant to the UoC the requirement for VMS of offshore shrimp and finfish trawlers will also greatly enhance the overall level of enforcement of Suriname fishery resources. Remedial actions None

17 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

Changes to condition None Updated status Ahead of Target

18 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

4.3 Reporting on Recommendations It should be reiterated that recommendations are non-binding. In addition there are no interim milestones set for recommendations at the time of the original assessment. As such, it is not the function of the surveillance audit to report on whether these recommendations are either on target or behind target. Instead, a more informal note of general progress is made. Below the progress on recommendations is reported on in turn:

4.3.1 Improved estimation and recording of total fishery removals. Both factories have now clarified the reporting and this now includes the amount of all seabob landed – including any seabob which is spoiled and therefore not part of the final factory production figures and data forms have been amended accordingly. This fully meets the intention of the recommendation.

4.3.2 Avoid mis-interpreting catch rate analysis This is something for the CRFM shrimp and ground fish working group to consider when next providing an updated stock assessment for shrimp. It is hoped that the Suriname delegate could provide annual summaries of VMS plots of fishing activities in recent years, to help avoiding this kind of mis-interpretation of CPUE. The Suriname delegate confirmed that he has not yet taken VMS plots to the CRFM Shrimp and Groundfish working group, but the intention is to do so. In addition consideration for a GIS based project is underway which would also map fishing effort.

4.3.3 New Fisheries Law and National Fisheries Management Plan Considerable work has been undertaken since the last surveillance as part of an ACP fish II programme to work on a National Fisheries Management Plan. The plan is now in the draft stage awaiting formal adoption. That said much of the content of the draft plan can be brought into law more readily via the annual ministerial decree which stipulates annual plans and management controls for each fishery. Although there is no redraft of the Fisheries Law and it is hoped that FAO assistance will be provided with this, it is understood that the existing law does provide sufficient legal platform for the new National Fisheries Management Plan.

4.3.4 Monitoring, Control and Surveillance at sea Significant steps have been taken in the last 12 months to increase the level of patrol at sea. Funds are now being invested in coastguard enforcement apparatus with a budget is over 20m US$, which received presidential approval last year. The project is now at the stage of purchasing boats, and helicopters. Personel are already receiving training, with many ex Navy. The full legal basis for the new Coastguard is currently on passage through parliament. And it is anticipated that the new service will be fully operational within the next 12 months. This has already lead to increased enforcement presence on the fishing grounds and is believed to already have had an impact in reducing the fishing activity of non Surinamese licenced vessels, indeed one Guyanese vessel has already been seized. In a separate development it is understood that the offshore penaeid and finfish trawlers are also now in the process of being required to carry VMS and the Guyanese authorities are also implementing this requirement for Guyanese vessels. Overall the actions taken fully meet the intention of the recommendation.

4.3.5 ETP encounter – summaries of data Onboard recording of ETP interactions has been implemented on all vessels and submission of ETP encounters recording forms is mandatory for all Captains at the end of each fishing trip. A review of a randomly selected sample of completed onboard ETP logs for the first year of certification did not indicate any ETP interactions. Overall it is not anticipated that there is a significant interaction however the surveillance audit would benefit in future years from the availability of a summary document (perhaps bi-monthly or quarterly, summarizing ETP data for both certified fleets). While excellent compliance with overall ETP reporting requirements amongst the certified fleet is apparent, the volume of data generated makes it difficult to extract the most relevant information. Additional progress in meeting with this recommendation would benefit future surveillances and would provide information collected in a more useable format.

19 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

4.4 Conclusions Table 1: Summary of progress on conditions/recommendations Binding Conditions Descriptions Status of Progress Condition 1 Good Information on all other fishery removals from the stock On target Condition 2 Ensure main bycatch species are within biologically based limits On target Condition 3 Nature, distribution and vulnerability of main seabed habitats Ahead of target Condition 4 Main functions of the components of the ecosystem are known On target Condition 5 Explanations for management action On Target Condition 6 Consistent application of sanctions to deal with non-compliance Ahead of target Non-binding Recommendations Recommendation 1 Improved estimation and recording of total fishery removals. Actioned Avoid mis-interpreting catch rate analysis Unchanged New Fisheries Law and National Fisheries Management Plan In Progress Monitoring, Control and Surveillance at sea Actioned ETP encounter – summaries of data Unchanged Sourced from original assessment There are no new conditions or recommendations.

4.5 Status of Certification The Suriname Seabob fishery remains certified to carry the MSC logo for sustainably managed fisheries.

20 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

Appendix 1 – Written Submissions from Stakeholders None

21 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

Appendix 2 - Surveillance Plan Table A2.1: Fishery Surveillance Plan Score from Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 CR Table C3 Category

On-site surveillance audit – variation On-site surveillance Normal On-site surveillance On-site surveillance 2 or more request submitted audit & recertification Surveillance audit - completed audit and accepted to site visit conduct off-site.

Appendix 2.1 Rationale for determining surveillance score Annual on-site surveillance of the certification is indicated according to CR§27.22.1-2 where the score exceeds 2. The score in the case of the seabob fishery is 6.

22 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

Appendix 3 - References Babb-Echteld, Y. (2013). INCIDENTAL REMOVAL OF ATLANTIC SEABOB BY FISHING VESSELS OTHER THAN SEABOB TRAWLERS. Prepared for Heiploeg by the Suriname Fisheries Department. CRFM 2012. Report of Eighth Annual Scientific Meeting – Kingstown, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, 20 - 30 June 2012. CRFM Fishery Report - 2012. Volume 1. 150p. Dakriet, N.N., 2013. B.Sc Thesis. Dieet van de seabobgarnaal Xiphopenaeus kroyeri in Suriname. Anton de kom Universtiteit van Suriname. Faculteit der Technologische Wetenschappen Agrarische productie. Hostens, K. and Willems, T 2012 Preliminary assessment of ray bycatch in the Surinam seabob fishery. Bio-environmental research Group, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO). Belgium. ILVO Mededeling 113 June 2012. Yspol, M. (2012). Strategie survey seabob artisanal (Artisanal Survey Template). LVV Seabob Working Group (2012). VERSLAG SEABOB WERKGROEP Periode januari 2011 tot en met december 2012. Available at http://www.gov.sr/sr/ministerie-van-lvv/documenten/verslagen.aspx Willems, T., Vincx, M., De Backer, A. and Dierick, J. 2013. Sleutelsoort? Het belang van de Atlantische seabobgarnaal als prooi voor mariene vissen in Suriname. Faculteit Wetenschappen, Universiteit Gent.

23 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

Appendix 4 – Progress report – Ph D Studentship

Doctoral school of Natural Sciences: Annual progress report 2012-2013 Student: Tomas Willems1,2 (20055062) 1Ghent University, Department of Biology, Marine Biology Section 2Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research - Biological Environmental Research

Academic year: 2012 –2013 Research Activities Topic: spatio-temporal distribution of demersal fish and epibenthic organisms on the continental shelf of Suriname in relation to environmental factors Completed activities - February – July 2012: monthly sampling at sea - August 2012 – January 2013: two-monthly sampling at sea (by fishing industry) - River discharge measurements in cooperation with prof. S. Naipal - Analysis of samples of epibenthic fauna (in progress) o Morphometric measurements of X. kroyeri o Identification and quantification of epibenthic fauna - Analysis of samples of epibenthic fauna - Data input in ILVO databank Planned activities - Data analysis - Two research papers: - Spatoi-temporal distribution of demersal fish and epibenthic organisms » Topic: Foodweb research: ecological role of X. kroyeri in the coastal food web Completed activities - February – July 2012: sampling at sea o Fish stomachs o Samples of X. kroyeri + possible food sources - Study diet of X. kroyeri o Use of trophic markers (C/N stable isotopes): samples sent and waiting for results o Stomach analysis of X. kroyeri (by bachelorstudent Adek University) - Study diet of marine fishes - Stomach analysis of 4 fish species (ca. 160 stomach analysed by bachelor students UGent)

Planned activities - Stomach analysis of X. kroyeri - Combine data from X. kroyeri stable isotope analysis and stomach analysis into a diet study paper - Fish stomach analyses

24 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

Topic: By-catch of elasmobranch fish in the fishery for X. kroyeri and effectiveness of net- adaptations Completed activities - February – July 2012: sampling at sea (34 comparative hauls) - August 2012 – January 2013: sampling at sea (by fishing industry; 24 comparative hauls) - Data input - Preliminary data analysis - Final data analysis - Writing a report (ILVO mededeling)

Topic: Impact of X. kroyeri trawling on the ecosystem Planned activities - Data collection in 2014 - Details to be specified

Educational activities Completed activities - Adek University (Suriname), faculty of Technological Science o River discharge measurements with prof. S. Naipal: organized a practical training for students (Bachelor in Environmental Science) o In progress: supervision MSc thesis (Master in Sustainable Use of Natural Resources) by Chantal Landburg: “Atlantic seabob shrimp trawling in Suriname: spatio-temporal patterns in population characteristics” o Finished: supervision BA thesis (Bachelor in Environmental Science) by Nyasha Dakriet: “Diet of the Atlantic seabob shrimp in Suriname based on analysis of stomach contents.” - Ghent University (Belgium), Marine Biology department o Supervison BA thesis (Bachelor in Biology) by Pieter Torrez, Jasper Dierick and Yasmina Shah Ismaeli: “Diet of a selection of marine fishes in Suriname”

Planned activities - Ghent University (Belgium), in cooperation with Adek University: supervision of Msc thesises (Master in Marine Biodiversity and Conservation) by o Thomas Kerckhove: Revealing the diet of seabob shimp o Inés Quilez: Studying the diet of a selection of marine fishes o Ana Rodríguez Pérez:Revealing spatio-temporal patterns in seabob shrimp populations and its fishery using fisheries data

Academic posters and presentations - Willems, T.; Hostens, K.; Vincx, M. (2013). By-catch in a tropical shrimp fishery: how effective are TEDs and BRDs in excluding elasmobranchs?. Poster at the VLIZ Young Scientist's Day 15 February 2013. ILVO/Marine Biology Section, Ghent University: Oostende, Gent. 1 poster pp. - Willems, T. Distribution patterns of epibenthic and demersal-fish communities on the continental shelf of Suriname. Presentation on annual symposium of Marine Biology Section, Ghent University (UNDECEMBBS). Ghent, 08/03/2012

Doctoral training programme - Finished courses

25 version 2.0(21/06/13) Food Certification International 2nd Annual Surveillance Suriname Atlantic sea-bob shrimp Fishery

o Advanced academic English: Writing a Research Article (Ghent University, Language centre): Oktober – December 2012 o The use of biomarkers in aquatic food webs (Ghent University, Marine biology section): 28/1 – 1/2/2013 o Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management using Ecopath with Ecosim/Ecospace (SAMS, Oban, Scotland): 2 – 5/9/2012

26 version 2.0(21/06/13)