SCS Global Services Report
MSC 2ND RE-ASSESSMENT PUBLIC CLIENT DRAFT REPORT
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery
Prepared for: Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera de Baja California, F.C.L. (FEDECOOP)
Date of Field Audit: November 17-18, 2015 Report Delivered: July 29, 2016
Prepared by: Dr. Carlos Alvarez Flores, Stock Assessment Consultant, Team Leader/Principle 1 and 3 Expert Ms. Sandra Andraka, Fisheries Consultant, Principle 2 Expert Dr. Sian Morgan, Procedural oversight Ms. Gabriela Anhalzer, Coordination
Natural Resources Division +1.510.452.6392
[email protected] 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main | +1.510-452-8001 fax www.SCSGlobalServices.com
SCSglobalservices.com
Table of Contents MSC 2ND RE-ASSESSMENT – PUBLIC CLIENT DRAFT REPORT ...... 1 Table of Contents ...... i Glossary ...... 4 1. Executive Summary ...... 7 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 10 Audit Team ...... 10 Peer Reviewers ...... 11 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 13 3.1. Unit(s) of Assessment, Unit of Certification and scope of certification ...... 13 3.2. Overview of the fishery ...... 14 3.3. Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 16 3.3.1. Taxonomic classification ...... 16 3.3.2. Biology ...... 16 3.3.3. Catch and effort ...... 20 3.3.4. Stock assessment ...... 21 3.3.5. Management ...... 28 3.3.6. Information ...... 31 3.4. Principle Two: Ecosystems Background ...... 32 3.4.1. Ecosystem ...... 32 3.4.2. Non-target species information and monitoring ...... 35 3.4.3. Overview of Non-target Catch ...... 36 3.4.4. Retained Catch ...... 39 3.4.5. Bycatch ...... 45 3.4.6. Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species ...... 47 3.4.7. Habitat Impacts ...... 48 3.4.8. Ecosystem Impacts ...... 50 3.5. Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 51 3.5.1. Area of operation of the fishery and under which jurisdiction it falls...... 51 3.5.2. Legal structure for fisheries management ...... 51 3.5.3. Laws germane to fishery management ...... 54 3.5.4. Fishery specific management system ...... 55 4. Evaluation Procedure ...... 59 4.1. Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 59 4.2. Previous assessments ...... 61 4.3. Assessment Methodologies ...... 63
4.4. Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 63 4.4.1. Site Visits ...... 63 4.4.2. Stakeholder Consultations and Due Diligence ...... 65 4.4.3. Documentation ...... 65 4.4.4. Scoring Process ...... 66 5. Traceability ...... 68 5.1. Eligibility Date ...... 68 5.2. Traceability within the Fishery ...... 68 5.3. Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 69 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 69 6. Evaluation Results ...... 70 6.1. Principle Level Scores ...... 70 6.2. Summary of Scores ...... 70 6.3. Summary of Conditions ...... 71 6.3.1. Recommendations ...... 72 6.4. Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 73 References ...... 75 Appendices ...... 80 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 80 6.4.1. Principle 1 ...... 80 6.4.2. Principle 2 ...... 94 6.4.3. Principal 3 ...... 127 Appendix 1.2 Conditions ...... 148 Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports ...... 159 Appendix 3. Stakeholder submissions ...... 185 Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency ...... 186 Appendix 5. Client Agreement ...... 187 Appendix 5.1 Objections Process ...... 188 Appendix 6. Additonal Evidence...... 189 Appendix 6.1 Summary of non-target species for fishing season 2014/15 for ten Cooperatives. 189 Appendix 6.2 Inspection Record ...... 191
Comments Anyone wishing to comment on this document or any other MSC scheme documents is encouraged to do so by sending an email to [email protected].
Glossary
AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process
ASI Accreditation Services International
BAC Biologically Acceptable Catch
BCS Baja California Sur
Bmin Minimum Biomass
BMSY biomass at maximum sustainable yield
CAB Certification Assessment Body
CC California Current
CCC Coastal Countercurrent
CCS California Current System
CNP Carta Nacional Pesquera (National Fisheries Chart)
COBI Comunidad y Biodiversidad
CoC Chain of Custody
COFEMER Federal Commission for the Regulations Improvement Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (National Commision of Natural Protected CONANP Areas) CONAPESCA Comisión Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura (National Commission of Fish and Agriculture)
CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort
CR Certification Requeriments
CRIP Centro Regional de Investigación Pesquera (Regional Center for Fisheries Research)
CV Coefficients of variation
DAT Default Assessment Tree
DOF Diario Oficial (Official Gazette)
ENSO El Nino Southern Oscillation
ERA Ecological Risk Assessment
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 4 of 199
ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development
ETP Endangered, Threatened, or Protected
F Fishing rate/catching rate
FAM Fisheries Assessment Methodology v2.1
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization [of the United Nations]
FCM Fishery Certification Methodology v6.1 Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera Baja California, FEDECOOP F.C.L FLIM fishing rate at which catchability will be impaired
FMP Fishery Management Plan
FMSY fishing rate at which catchability is sustainable and at a maximum g Gram (0.001 kg)
HCR Harvest Control rule
INAPESCA Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (National Fisheries Institute)
INE Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (National Ecology Institute)
IPI Inseparable or Practically Inseparable
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
LGEEPA Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables (General Law for Sustainable Fishing and LGPAS Aquaculture) LRP Limit Reference Point mm Millimeter
MSC Marine Stewardship Council
MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield
MT Metric Ton
NGO Non-Governmental Organization nm Nautical mile (1nm = 1.852 km)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 5 of 199
NOM Norma Oficial Mexicana
OY Optimum Yield
PCDR Public Comment Draft Report
PI Performance Indicator Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (Secretariat of SAGARPA Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food) SCS SCS Global Services SEMARNAT Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources) SG Scoring Guidepost
SICA Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis
SL Standard Length (from tip of closed mouth to end of fleshy body)
SSB and R Spawning Stock Biomass and Recruitment
SST Sea Surface Temperature
TAB Technical Advisory Board [of the MSC]
TAC Total Allowable Catch
TL Total length
TRP Target reference point
TS Target Strength
UoA Unit of Assessment
UoC Unit of Certification
VPA Virtual Population Analysis
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 6 of 199
1. Executive Summary
Unit of Location Species Gear Assessment (same for all units) Red rock lobster Central zone in Baja 1 California, Mexico, from Isla Wire Traps (Panulirus interruptus) Cedros to Punta Abreojos
SCS Global Services (SCS) is an independent third party certification body that has undertaken the MSC re-assessment of the red rock Lobster Fishery from the Central zone in Baja California, Mexico in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing. The second re-assessment was completed in accordance with MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing as prescribed in MSC Certification Requirements V1.3 (January 2013) and associated guidance to the Certification Requirements V1.3 (January 2013). Aspects of V2.0 guidance germane to metapopulations that were not available in V1.3 were also used in the assessment of Principle 1.
The assessment examines a single Unit of Assessment with a single target1 species, the red rock Lobster (Panulirus interruptus), in the central area along the west coast of the Baja California Peninsula, captured with wire traps. The assessment team recognized that the harvested stock is likely part of a larger P. interruptus population ranging from southern California to the area around Bahia Magdalena. However, the central unit, which contributes close to 70% of the total catch landed in the P. interruptus’s range, was recognized as a self-sustaining unit which could be managed independently from other fractions of the population.
Nine out of the 26 cooperatives fishing for red rock Lobster in Baja California encompass both the Unit of Assessment and the Unit of Certification. These cooperatives are all part of the Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera Baja California, F.C.L (FEDECOOP) and catch approximately 80% of the total red rock lobster in the region. No other cooperative, fisher group or individual was assessed and therefore there are no other eligible fishers. The Unit of Certification is the same as the Unit of Assessment.
A remarkable characteristic of this fishery is that as a result of the establishment of exclusive fishing rights originally allocated in the 1930s, there is a strong sense of appropriation held by fishers in all cooperatives in the Unit of Assessment. Cooperative members recognize the lobster fishery as one of the critical keystones supporting the local economic system. This attitude led to seeking recognition of their efforts in developing a sustainable operation which is self-managed with the assistance of authorities. Enforcement of management measures is a common shortcoming in other Mexican fisheries. However, illegal catch is unlikely to be a problem in this fishery because the strong sense of appropriation by the fishers facilitates surveillance coordination with authorities. Additionally, the supply chain between fishers and main reception centers is integrated under each cooperative. The fishery is also well acquainted with the demands of the Marine Stewardship
1 The “target stock” in the MSC system is defined as “those fish stocks which have been assessed under Principle 1 of the MSC Principle and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing”.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 7 of 199
Council (MSC) requirements and has consistently made the necessary efforts to comply with pending conditions.
Weaknesses found in the assessment arise from the low-tech nature of fishing operations and the limitations of the advisory entities. These constrains hinder collection and analysis of data, and prevent the fishery from fully meeting the performance required by the MSC standard. Likewise, despite the long history of effective community based co-management, the formal management framework is still insufficient and is slowly developing. The absence of a document that integrates both objectives and general management strategy, makes accessing different management elements difficult and at times creates ambiguous definitions. The Management Plan has not been ratified as of the publication of this report, remaining as a draft for several years.
Table 1. Scores by Principle obtained by the red rock lobster Fishery in Baja California.
Principle Final score Principle 1 – Target Species 81.3 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 83.0 Principle 3 – Management System 87.0
In this report, we provide detailed rationales for scores presented for each of the Performance Indicators (PIs) under Principle 1 (Stock status and Harvest strategy), Principle 2 (Ecosystem Impact) and Principle 3 (Governance, Policy and Management system) of the MSC Standard. No PIs failed to reach the minimum Scoring Guidepost (SG) of 60, and the average scores for the three Principles remained above SG80 (Error! Reference source not found.). The team issued seven conditions for five PIs that did not meet SG80 level. The fishery received three conditions in Principle 1, two conditions in both Principles 2 and 3. A Client Action Plan, detailed in Appendix 1.2., was produced to meet the conditions.
Under Principle 1 two of the PIs (1.1.2 and 1.2.2) received scores under SG80, these are related to use of appropriate reference points and the harvest control rule. This is a result of a passive management, which has served to meet the management needs of FEDECOOP, and relies on the compliance and enforcement system in place. Limited resources slow the advancement towards a more active management. INAPESCA, the government institution responsible for fisheries research shows improvement, however, actions are still needed for the management tools required by the MSC to be successfully implemented. Currently research is conducted under the directive of Annual Operative Plans, focusing on short term objectives. The proposed Management Plan, includes long term objectives, providing a framework for developing a comprehensive research program
The efficiency of the existing management system is reflected in a stock that shows signs of good health; with yield fluctuations that appear closely related to the intensity of effort. Catch in the last 15 years shows no signs of negative impacts on the stock despite a slightly increasing trend in effort. This effort increase has declined in the last 4 years, diminishing initial concerns. Notwithstanding trends in catch and effort will need to be monitored closely in the future and interpreted in a broader context that considers anomalous environmental conditions in recent years.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 8 of 199
Under Principle 2 the Information PIs (2.1.3 and 2.2.3) achieved a score of less than SG80. Two conditions were set to address the need for sufficient information to estimate outcome status of retained and bycatch species. Overall, Principle 2 scored well due to low volume of bycatch species captured. In addition, data collection measures implemented during the previous evaluation cycle, report the absence of interactions with Endangered Threatened and Protected (ETP) species, and the low impact of the trap fishery in the habitat. A number of different fish species are used to bait the lobster traps, with the total volume of bait exceeding the volume of the total lobster catch. Small pelagics are used most commonly as bait, principally Pacific sardines Sardinops sagax. Despite the comparatively large volumes of small pelagics used as bait in this fishery, these represent a marginal contribution to the small pelagics fishery off the West Coast of California, making it highly unlikely that the volume of sardine used for bait would hinder the status or recovery of the sardine fishery.. However, conditions placed for this PI seek to improve available information for retained, bait and bycatch species, to increase certainty regarding the impact of this fishery on their status.
Principle 3 overall scored well, in part because Mexico has a legal framework that manages numerous highly developed fisheries, including some which have already been verified to be in compliance with MSC requirements. The General Law on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture is the overarching law that regulates all fishing activity in Mexico. Fishery specific regulations have been efficient in declaring objectives and implementing management measures. The NOM-006-PESC is the Official Mexican Norm that includes all regulatory definitions for lobster fishing and includes gear specifications and legal size.The community based co-management has proved to be reasonably effective in assuring compliance with the fishery regulatory system. The only conditions raised on this Principle relate to the development of an explicit research program and the timely diffusion of research results.
The team selected to undertake the assessment includes four team members that collectively meet the requirements for MSC assessment teams. These are: . Dr. Carlos M. Alvarez-Flores, Principle 1 and 3 Expert, Team Leader . Ms. Sandra Andraka, Principle 2 Expert
The team met with fishery representatives, scientists and stakeholders in Ensenada, Mexico, on November 17 and 18th, 2015. Documents were presented by fishery representatives and fisheries scientists. Client representatives were thorough in their approach and provided the assessment team with supporting documents. The original announcement for the re-assessment indicated that the Risk based framework (RBF) would not need to be used and this was confirmed from information provided prior to and during the site visit. The re-assessment proceeded without the RBF.
In this report we provide the rationales for all scores proposed, which support the second- assessment recommending the fishery for certification.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 9 of 199
2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers
Audit Team
Dr. Carlos Alvarez-Flores, Oceanos Consulting - Team Leader, Principles 1 & 3
Dr. Carlos Alvarez-Flores was born in Mexico City and obtained Bachelors of Science and Master of Science degrees at the National University of Mexico. He later moved to Seattle, USA to obtain a Doctor of Philosophy degree at the School of Fisheries of the University of Washington. His research interests are focused on the management and conservation of wildlife and fisheries. This includes abundance estimation; assessment of population status; estimation of population parameters; the effect of human intervention; direct harvest; bycatch and associated environmental effects; projections based on biological potential; population viability; risk assessment; design of alternative management strategies. His training was related to large, pelagic, data rich fisheries, and some of his investigations involved the bycatch of dolphins in the pelagic purse seine tuna fisheries of the Eastern Tropical Pacific, the hunt of beluga whales in West Greenland, the hunt of bowhead whales in Canada, the bycatch of albatrosses in pelagic fisheries of the central Pacific. In contrast, his current assignments are related to small-scale, coastal fisheries that are very data poor. Therefore, his present challenges are to combine ideas, techniques, knowledge and experience to improve the performance of these problematic fisheries in developing countries. Most of his experience has been focused on practical investigations applied to population and fishery assessment and management as a consultant for governments, NGOs and the private sector of different countries. To the present, he has worked for SCS for over two years in MSC pre-assessments, assessments and surveillance audits of different types of fisheries in different countries.
Sandra Andraka, Consulting Team Member, Principle 2
Ms. Sandra Andraka has conducted an MSC pre-assessment for SCS as well as undertaken SCS additional training in MSC process and scoring. Her varied background includes marine conservation, fisheries management (industrial and small-scale) and policy work and advocacy, both nationally and internationally, for adoption of conservation measures for better practices in fisheries for more than ten years. She is been working in conservation projects in Latin America for more than 18 years, including Marine Spatial Planning, bycatch mitigation, projects linking marine turtles and cetaceans conservation with communities livelihoods, planning and implementation of conservation result- based management projects. She is currently an international consultant for NGOs, government and private sector and she has commissioned to work on assessment of the capacity needs towards implementation of the FAO Port State Measures Agreement, a proposal writing for developing a public-private sustainable marine commodities platform to mainstream sustainability in the large pelagic value chain in Costa Rica and to build capacity to develop onboard observer programs, among others. She has several publications, which meet the CR requirements for Principle 2 and 3. Ms. Andraka earned her advance degree in Environmental Planning from the International Centre for Mediterranean Studies (CIHEAM), in Spain, and a degree in Biology from the Complutense University of Madrid, Spain.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 10 of 199
Peer Reviewers
The peer reviewers were selected based on their qualifications and competencies.
Dr. Richard Parrish, Independent Consultant
Dr. Parrish holds M.Sc. and Ph.D degrees from Oregon State University and has worked for Victoria Fisheries and Wildlife Department (Melbourne), at the California Department of Fish and Game (in pelagic fisheries and then as Chief of the groundfish program) and then held a position as a fisheries biologist with the Pacific Environmental Group (NMFS) in Monterey California (now the Environmental Division of the Southwest Fisheries Center). Dr. Parrish’s work on coastal pelagic species is relevant to the fishery under assessment: . Fish stock biology /ecology: Dr. Parrish has over five years of experience working with fisheries biology and population dynamics. Dr. Parrish has researched the relationships between physical oceanographic factors and fisheries. He supported the work of the California Spiny Lobster Fisheries Management Plan and his assessment on the Spiny Lobster for the South Bay Cable was a major part of the analysis for the FMP . Fish stock Assessment: Dr. Parrish has over five years of experience applying relevant stock assessment techniques being used by this fishery. He developed a yield-per-recruit model of the California segment of the California spiny lobster for the South Bay Cable/Fisheries Liaison Committee. Dr. Parrish also worked as a Research Manager for Del Monte Food’s in the Sultanate of Oman, conducting fishery and fishery independent research using a wide variety of fishing gear (gillnets, bottom trawls, mid-water trawls, benthic longlines, fyke nets and seine nets,) and fisheries science methods (e.g. hydro-acoustic surveys, tagging and port sampling programs and otolith reading).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 11 of 199
Dr. Alvaro Hernandez. Professor and Researcher Dr. Hernandez holds M.Sc. from the National Polytechnic Institute, Mexico in Marine Sciences (Fisheries Stock Assessment) and a Ph.D from the University of Delaware, Delaware USA in Marine Policy (Fisheries Economics). Since 2014 Dr. Herndez has held a position as Professor and Researcher at the Universidad Marista de Merida in Mexico. Dr. Hernadez’s several years of fishery work experience and current knowledge of Mexico fishery context and the language qualify him as a peer review for this assessment: . Biology fishing impacts on aquatic Ecosystems: Dr. Hernandez has over five years’ experience in research and policy analysis for management of fisheries impacts in the region. He held a position as Senior Fisheries Officer for the World Wildlife Fund – Mexico. Dr. Hernadez implemented, monitored, and evaluated projects on sustainable fisheries management in the Mesoamerican Reef Ecorregion. . Fishery management and operations: Dr. Hernandez has extensive research experience in Mexico of fisheries management and policy, fisheries economics, econometrics, fisheries stock assessment and simulation models, scientific and technical writing, ocean and coastal policy, knowledge on intergovernmental institutions like FAO, UN system, IUCN, OECD. His work also includes the role of practicing fishery manager having worked as Senior Scientist for the Regional Center of Fisheries Research in Yucatan, Mexico, where he produced Fisheries Management Plans, and strategies several Mexican fisheries. He’s also worked providing technical assistance on stock assessment and fishing effort impact, to fishery sector, such as fisheries managers, fishermen, and industrial fisheries sector.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 12 of 199
3. Description of the Fishery
3.1. Unit(s) of Assessment, Unit of Certification and scope of certification
The fishery under assessment is the red rock lobster Panulirus interruptus fishery of Baja California, located on the northern Mexican Pacific Coast and is described in Table 1. In Baja California, 26 fishing cooperatives exploit P. interruptus, of these nine are part of both the Unit of Assessment and also comprise the Unit of Certification (Table 2). These cooperatives are all part of the Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera Baja California, F.C.L (FEDECOOP) and catch approximately 80% of the total red rock lobster in the region. The legal exploitable area for the nine cooperative group members covers approximately 2,400 km2 along the coast of Mexico. This area extends from Cedros Island in Baja California (28.6˚N 115.5˚W) to Punta Abreojos in Baja California Sur (26.6˚N 113.2˚W) (Figure 1). In previous assessments the cooperative at Isla Guadalupe, approximately 250 km off the coast of Baja California, was included but for this Re- assessment and the upcoming five year cycle of the certificate, the FEDECOOP decided to withdraw it. No other cooperative, fisher group or individual was assessed and therefore there are no other eligible fishers. The Unit of Certification is the same as the Unit of Assessment. The harvested stock in central Baja California is recognized as part of a larger population ranging from southern California to the area around Bahía Magdalena in Baja California Sur. However, the central region, which produces nearly 70% of the total catch from this population, is also identified as a self-sustaining unit which can be managed independently from other neighboring units and conforms to the definition of the Unit of Assessment. Table 2. Unit of Assessment (UoA) and Unit of Certification (UoC). Units of Assessment: Defined as the species, location and gear assessed
UoA: Species Red rock lobster (Panulirus interruptus)
UoA: Geographical Area (Local From Cedros Island in Baja California through Punta Abreojos, Baja Population Unit within larger California Sur metapopulation)
UoA: Gear Type Wire Traps
The metapopulation ranges from Southern California, USA, south to the Further information: Stock (overall Baja California Peninsula tip in Mexico. The harvested stock is a self- biological metapopulation) sustaining unit from the metapopulation that can be managed independently. Further information: Management CONAPESCA-The National Commission on Aquaculture and Fisheries in System Mexico (Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca) Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas “Baja California” Client Group (FEDECOOP) Fishers in the UoC for the assessed 9 Cooperatives in the Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas Geographical Area. “Baja California” Other Eligible Fishers that may join There are no other eligible fishers the certificate for the chosen stock
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 13 of 199
In compliance with section 27.4 in Part C of CR V1.3 January 2013, SCS confirms that the Baja California red rock lobster Fishery conforms to the scope elements defining eligibility for full assessment against the MSC standard. The fishery is not being conducted under a unilateral exemption to an international agreement (CR 27.4.4.1), is not using destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives (CR 27.4.4.2). The fishery does not engage in shark finning, has mechanisms for resolving disputes (CR 27.4.5), and has not previously failed assessment or had a certificate withdrawn (CR 27.4.7). There are no other eligible fishers, there are not IPI species (CR 27.4.9), neither stock is enhanced (CR 27.4.12) nor are either P1 species introduced (CR 27.4.14).
3.2. Overview of the fishery
The assessed fishery for the red rock lobster (Panulirus interruptus) takes place from Cedros Island in Baja California through Punta Abreojos in Baja California Sur (Figures 1 and 9). Members of the nine fishing cooperatives in the UoC are distributed in at least ten villages in the fishing area and produce approximately 80% of the catch of this species in the region. Fishing methods include 5-7 m long fiberglass boats equipped with 60-115 Hp outboard motors. The crews (2-3 fishermen) participate in setting out wire traps, which are fitted with biodegradable staples and escape gaps and to allow sub- legal lobster to escape and to avoid ghost fishing. The boats are also equipped with hydraulic or mechanic winches. Once caught, lobsters are kept alive for a few days in special floating wooden containers called recibas. Live lobsters are transported by boat to landing spots and then to reception centers distributed along the coast. One cooperative may have several landing points but only one reception center and fishers from one cooperative will not deliver catch at landing points from other cooperatives. Most of the catch is sold alive; however, some are steam-cooked whole, packed in boxes and frozen or processed as frozen lobster tails. The main market for Baja red rock lobster is Asia. The lobsters are taken under bond to San Diego and Los Angeles, and then shipped mainly to China and Vietnam and a smaller volume to Taiwan and Hong Kong.
The red rock lobster fishery in Baja California is under the regulations, measures and management plans administered by relevant Mexican agencies under the National Fisheries Law (Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables; DOF 2007 with last amendments published in the official gazette on 04-06-2015). Measures specific to the lobster fishery in the federal waters of the Mexican Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico as well as those in the Pacific Ocean, Baja California Peninsula and the Gulf of California, are outlined in the Mexican Official Norm 006 (Norma Oficial Mexicana 006-PESC- 1993).
The National Fisheries Chart (Carta Nacional Pesquera, CNP) is a formal document summarizing the state of a large number of fisheries in Mexico, including the red rock lobster fishery. The CNP also includes general provisions and recommendations that must be observed by fishers and authorities.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 14 of 199
Figure 1. Concession areas for the nine FEDECOOP cooperatives under assessment. From McCay, 2014.
A management plan has been drafted and the latest version is dated April 2014 (Vega-Velázquez et al., 2014) but it has not yet been approved for publication in the official gazette (Diario Oficial, DOF).
Three government agencies are primarily responsible for the management of the Mexican red rock lobster fishery. CONAPESCA is the administering entity of SAGARPA (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación), a unit of the Federal Executive Branch of the Government of Mexico, and the agency responsible for administering the fisheries and aquaculture legislation in Mexico. INAPESCA is the research arm of the fisheries management authority, CONAPESCA (Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca), and provides data used to make management decisions. CONAPESCA is responsible for creation and implementation of regulations related to permitting, harvest controls and closures. PROFEPA (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente), the federal agency responsible for environmental protection, is the enforcement agency operating under the legal framework of the General Law for Sustainable Fishing and Aquaculture (LGPAS) and the General Act of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA-1996).
Fishing rights were first exclusively allocated to fishermen's Cooperatives between 1936 and 1938, by assigning a group of species (lobster, abalone and others) within a delimited fishing territory to each fisher organization. When the actual Fisheries Law was enacted, three instruments were defined to implement fishing policy in Mexico, the Programs for Fisheries Regulatory Organization (Programas de Ordenamiento Pesquero); the Fisheries Management Plans and the Concessions and Permits. In the lobster fishery of Baja California, a unique limited entry program has been implemented using concessions which define the geographic limits of fishing areas and which also act to limit the number of boats and traps being proposed by the fishing coops in their mandatory
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 15 of 199
annual programs. This regime is complemented with regulatory measures protecting reproduction and recruitment, such as minimum size limits, area and temporal closures, protection of ovigerous females and escape windows and biodegradable staple in traps.
There are mechanisms of coordination and co-management that facilitate coordination between fishers and technical personnel of INAPESCA, starting with the collection of data and extending to discussion of research results, where recommendations for management are openly and transparently discussed before their submission to fisheries authorities. One of the mechanisms used in coordination and co-management is the Comité Técnico Consultivo de la Pesquería de Langosta del Pacífico (Technical consulting committee for the Pacific lobster fishery). Created in 1988, the committee annually organizes the Taller Anual de Langosta (Annual lobster workshop). There is also a Subcomité Estatal de Langosta de Baja California Sur (Baja California Sur state lobster subcommittee), which has operated since 2003, within the framework of the Consejo Estatal de Pesca y Acuacultura. This subcommittee aggregates representatives from the cooperatives, SAGARPA and members of the INAPESCA CRIP centers from La Paz, Ensenada and Baja California.
3.3. Principle One: Target Species Background
3.3.1. Taxonomic classification Class: Malacostraca Order: Decapoda Family: Palinuridae Genus: Panulirus Species: interruptus
3.3.2. Biology
Behavior and distribution
The target species in this fishery (Panulirus interruptus; Randal 1840) is commonly known as Baja California red rock lobster and California spiny lobster, in Mexico the species is known as Langosta Roja (Vega 2006).
The red rock lobster (Panulirus interruptus), is a temperate to subtropical species, distributed from Southern California, USA, south to the Baja California Peninsula tip in Mexico. Small populations of the species may also be found in the Gulf of California between Bahía de los Angeles and Cabo Vírgenes. The west coast of Baja California, Mexico is a highly variable ecosystem that transitions from cold upwelling areas in the north to a subtropical ecosystem in the south. The area is characterized by high productivity compared to areas in southern California (See section 3.4.1 Ecosystem p 32). The stages of the reproductive process of the red rock lobster are synchronized with the cycles of temperature and upwelling (Vega 2003) and the event of El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
The red rock lobster occupies different habitats and forms part of different ecosystems during the course of its life cycle. The larval stage is pelagic (8-9 months). The puerulus represents the transition from the pelagic to the benthic larval phase; these settle in coastal reef areas dominated
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 16 of 199
by macroalgae and surf grasses (mainly Phyllospadix spp). The juvenile lobsters are benthic on shallow rocky intertidal bottoms. The adult phase is associated with deeper waters, with a relatively small home range and different habitats that are considered important for their diurnal and nocturnal activities (Vega 2003, Whithy-Allen 2010). Settled adult lobsters make short nocturnal movements each day for feeding, from their refuge areas (composed of rock crevices, stacked cobble and boulders, and hollowed-out kelp holdfasts) to shallower zones, using macroalgae forest and seagrass habitat. They also make seasonal migrations (Whithy-Allen 2010).
Adult lobsters are omnivorous and consume algae, snails, mussels, sea urchins, clams and fish. Cannibalism has been reported on injured or newly molted lobsters (Barsky 2001). Lobster are prey for sheephead, cabezón, kelp bass, octopuses, California moray eels, horn sharks, leopard sharks, rockfishes and giant sea bass (Barsky 2001).
Stock Structure
The existence of a single red rock lobster population has been suggested based on larval distribution (Johnson 1960; Pringle 1986) and adult abundances (Vega 2006) with a core of the population in the central part of the peninsula. An analysis of the genetic structure of the red rock lobster in Baja California (García-Rodríguez and Pérez-Enriquez 2006) reported little mtDNA differentiation in lobsters along the peninsula. The authors discussed the relevance of apparently contradicting results from previous analyses using allozyme differentiation. They concluded that homogeneity of mtDNA is related to the presence of intense genetic flow in a stable population where the forces driving genetic differentiation are more related to drift and mutation, whereas protein variability is more influenced by selection and the effect of local environmental conditions. This finding suggests the possible existence of a meta-population with moderately discrete units interconnected by larval flow in which a sub-population shares a set of biological characteristics with other population units and keeps other biological characteristics exclusive to its own specific location.
In 2013 findings by Iacchei et al. challenged the theory of a meta-population in which intense and extended larval flow produces a strong connectivity and genetic homogeneity among different units. The authors found evidence of “significant genetic structuring among several sampling locations throughout Mexico and Southern California”, where smaller differentiated sites are found in larger undifferentiated sites. This pattern of differentiation does not correspond to the traditional division of northern, central and southern regions as predicted by Perez-Enriquez et al. (2001).
The level of differentiation proposed by Iacchei et al. (2013) is documented in other species, however, it had never been reported for a species with such a long period of larval dispersion, such as P. interruptus. A reason why the nature of this structure had not been elucidated before appears to be that the statistical tool used so far was not entirely appropriate to test the level of localized differentiation observed in this lobster species. Application of kinship analysis by Iacchei et al. (2013) showed that
“[…] across all sites, lobsters were more closely related within site than between sites, and at the majority of sites, we found significantly greater than expected levels of kinship between adult lobsters […] The simplest explanation for this phenomenon is that larvae released together stay together throughout dispersal and recruitment (kin aggregation)”.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 17 of 199
Iacchei et al. (2013) propose that the mechanisms to make such intense process of kinship operate in a species that spends many months floating in larval stages:
“High levels of within-site kinship could also be driven by a temporally stable pattern of self- recruitment, either through larval retention or through larval dispersal with subsequent recruitment back to the natal site. The prospect that larvae stay in the plankton for 240–330 days and return to settle near their site of release seems unlikely at first. However, the site- specific kinship patterns in our data match theoretical predictions for a species that has evolved a long PLD to avoid predation during the larval phase rather than to facilitate broad dispersal of larvae (Strathmann et al. 2002). The extended PLD may enable phyllosoma to disperse far offshore, into a pelagic environment that is favorable for the survival of unprotected larval-stage individuals (Strathmann et al. 2002). Late-stage lobster larvae (pueruli) are fast swimmers (Serfling & Ford 1975) and may utilize strong upwelling regimes to return and settle near their natal site after dispersing offshore. If this behaviour is selectively advantageous, we would expect to observe enhanced local recruitment regardless of PLD. Furthermore, local recruitment should be more pronounced at sites with strong, persistent upwelling”.
This model was further refined by Funes-Rodríguez et al. (2015) using a more accurate description of the hydrography of the region fit to a clearer description of the larval movement from hatching to settlement. In summary, larval distribution suggest dispersal and retention facilitated by the California Current and mesoscale eddies, however, their results indicate that settlement of pueruli may be regulated by the formation of meanders and poleward currents which add to the capacity of pueruli to swim back to the settlement area.
The dispersal and settlement model proposed by Funes-Rodríguez et al. (2015) outlines a process that starts with highly fecund individuals. Larvae that are closely related that can be dispersed south and offshore. Larvae that are dispersed south and north contribute to neighboring areas and maintain genetic connectivity. Offshore moving larvae stay together and are influenced by coastal upwelling and favor higher selective value for survival in the oceanic environment over dispersal. These larvae will return to their source via swimming in a process of self-recruitment. Late phyllosoma larvae and pueruli swimming on meanders “might exert a stronger influence on recruitment than the retention of larvae in semi-permanent eddies”.
Under guidance for assessment of Metapopulation, the MSC Certification Requirements version 2.0, provides a table with four potential stock structures for different forms of metapopulations, as determined by the degree of connectivity and self-recruitment (Table G2). The population structure model for red rock lobster, as described by Iacchei et al. (2013) and Funes-Rodríguez et al. (2015), resembles some of the characteristics of meta-population type B “Local population with partial isolation”. The red rock lobster population meets the type B description of a self-sustaining population where fishing on neighbor units appears to have no effect on the dynamics of neighboring populations. However, it differs from the type B stock structure, in that it cannot be considered to be partly isolated with minimal connectivity. The dispersal and settlement model for red rock lobster in Baja California (Iacchei et al. 2013; Funes-Rodríguez et al. 2015) suggests the existence of considerable gene flow through intense larval dispersal. This lobster stock is unique in that the hydrography of the central Baja California promotes the existence of significant amounts of
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 18 of 199
kin-related larvae moving offshore and returning months later as pueruli, creating an effectively self- sustaining population that is resilient to the harvest pressure on other units. The management therefore can be based on normal expectations about reference points that may apply exclusively to the local stock.
Based on the population abundance of the species, four fishing areas have been identified in Baja California (Figure 9). These areas are used in the analysis and evaluation of the fishery as well as for its management. The northern zone covers the area from the border to the Lat. 28 N and includes the Islands Todos Santos, Jerome, Guadalupe, San Martín and Adelaide. The lobster population is concentrated in the Central zone, which includes the Cedros Islands, St. Benedict, CB Island Nativity, San Roque, Asunción, the coastal platform from Vizcaino Bay, including the lagoon Hare's eye and the North Punta Laguna San Ignacio. The southern zone ranges from Laguna San Ignacio to Cabo San Lucas. The fourth zone encompasses populations in the Gulf of California, the east coast from Bay of the Angeles, San José of Cabo to Cabo San Lucas and the adjacent islands. Small populations of the species can be found in this zone, but abundances are unknown.
Growth and Natural Mortality
In order to grow, a lobster forms a new soft shell under the older smaller hard exoskeleton. During the process of molting, the old exoskeleton is shed to reveal the new larger one (Bersky 2001). The red rock lobster is a slow growing species that can live up to 30 years attaining sizes of 190 to 200 mm of carapace length (CL; Lindberg 1955; Ayala et al. 1988; Guzmán and Pineda 1992). Growth studies on P. interruptus in Mexico have been performed using a number of methods. Age at sexual maturity (65 mm CL) in one case was estimated to be 3 years for males and 5 for females while another case estimated 4.5 and 6 years, respectively. Similarly, age of males and females at minimum legal size (82.5 mm CL) was estimated at 4 and 7 years as well as 6.5 and 8.5 years (Vega 2006).
No information was provided on natural mortality, however, given the estimated longevity it can be assumed a low natural mortality in mature animals and high in the larval stages as seen in other species of the Panulirus genus (Frisch and Hobbs, 2012).
Reproduction and Recruitment
The red rock lobster presents a marked sexual dimorphism. Females have one brood per year breeding earlier in the northern areas (June) than in the central (July) and southern parts (August) of Baja California (Vega-Velázquez 1991). Fecundity also follows a latitudinal trend, with females producing fewer eggs per brood in the north than in the south of the peninsula (Pineda et al. 1981). Breeding and hatching occur in shallow areas (< 20 m), into which adults move in the spring, returning to deeper waters in the autumn (Ayala et al. 1988). Lobster eggs hatch between July and November into tiny, transparent larvae known as phyllosomas that go through 11 molts during a period of 7 to 12 months (Johnson 1960; Peñaloza-Mayorazgo 2008). After this period, the phyllosoma transform into the puerulus and then the juvenile stage (Booth and Phillips 1994). In Bahía Tortugas, Baja California Sur, pueruli settled on artificial collectors most of the year, but with a
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 19 of 199
major peak in autumn (September-October) and a minor peak in spring (March-June) (Guzmán del Próo et al. 1996).
Red rock lobsters can attain sexual maturity in animals with at least 57-60 mm of carapace length (LC) at about 3-4 years of age. It is been estimated that size where 50% of the animals are sexually mature is between 67-75 mm in the central region of Baja California (Vega-Velázquez 2003). Fecundity has been estimated to be between 5x104 eggs in small females of 67 to 70 mm LC up to 2x106 in females larger than 155 mm LC (Pineda et al. 1981; Vargas 1999; Vega-Velázquez et al. 2014). This information has been used to determine that the largest potential for egg production is in intermediate sizes of 64-85 mm LC which includes the group of pre-recruit (to the fishery) lobsters (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2014).
3.3.3. Catch and effort
Trends in catch and effort for the red rock lobster in the central fishing area are shown in Figure 2. The catch record starts in the 1960-61 fishing season with 400 t of lobster caught. Catches increased and continued fluctuating just under 1,000 mt until 1995 when catches increased to approximately 1,200 mt and remained at that level until year 2000. In 2000 the catch increased rapidly and stabilized at approximately 1,400 mt until 2010. In season 2011/12 the catch spiked to a historic catch level of nearly 1,900 mt, but has been declining since to reach about 1,200 mt, the lowest in the last 15 years (Table 3).
Figure 2. Catch (bars in mt) and effort (continuous line in number of traps hauled) in metric tonnes of red rock lobster in the central region of the Pacific coast of Baja California, Mexico. Reproduced from Vega-Velázquez et al. (2015).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 20 of 199
Table 3. Catch (mt) and effort (number of trap-hauls) in each of the 10 fishing cooperatives during the 20011/12, 12/13, 13/14, and 14/15 fishing seasons (Ramade et al. 2013; 2014; 2015).
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Cooperative Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total catch effort catch effort catch effort catch effort Pescadores Nacionales 281.3 242,280 256.9 259,280 200.5 251,350 177.5 250,946 de Abulon Buzos y 145.6 178,888 170.3 180,310 151.8 200,811 151.518 155,392 Pescadores La Purisima 304.2 373,536 259.4 352,351 248.4 378,556 227.451 366,231
Bahia Tortugas 240.3 272,815 190.6 238,791 163.6 233,737 141.928 232,437
Emancipacion 221.6 267,683 172.0 267,650 167.0 223,380 102.195 201,562 California de 118.3 134,874 88.4 124,346 79.4 103,431 56.554 86,196 San Ignacio Leyes de 200.6 150,150 134.1 154,957 105.4 158,477 70.488 77,165 Reforma Progreso 170.3 376,750 140.4 341,626 145.5 346,523 87.280 300,856
Punta Abreojos 216.5 288,532 186.2 290,326 185.2 282,910 157.219 256,829
TOTAL 1,898.7 2,285,508 1,598.3 2,209,637 1,446.8 2,179,175 1,172.16 1,927,614
3.3.4. Stock assessment
The fishery has been assessed by personnel from the INAPESCA using several modelling approaches (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2000; Vega-Velázquez 2003; Vega-Velázquez 2006). Vega et al. (2000) assessed the fishery applying a modified version of a Biomass Dynamic Model (Hilborn and Walters 1992) which incorporated environmental variability by means of sea surface temperature anomalies, and used the 1971-72 to 1996-97 catch and effort time series (Sierra et al. 1997). Reference points were set at MSY (incorporating biomass, fishing mortality, effort and rate of exploitation). In an early version of INAPESCA’s Red Book, it was established that management decisions will be taken depending on the relationship of current biomass (B) with the BMSY, with B/BMSY <1 of will be considered under is optimum level, while a stock with B/BMSY >1 will be considered over its optimum, and B/BMSY=1 considered an optimum level (Arenas-Fuentes y Díaz de León 2000).
Vega-Velázquez (2003) used a model with Lagged Recruitment, Survival and Growth (LRSG; Hilborn and Mangel 1997) which is a more flexible model that incorporates alternative life history characteristics. The LRSG model is appropriate for commercial species such as lobster because recruitment events of a particular year for this species have been correlated with catch five years later (Arteaga-Ríos et al. 2007). In Vega-Velázquez (2003) and Vega-Velázquez (2006), the biomass dynamics model and other approaches were used to provide more robust advice to management. The 2003 and 2006 assessments used the analytical models of Leslie-Delury modified by Restrepo (1998), a length based Virtual Populations Analysis (Jones 1984), and a Thompson and Bell predictive model (Vega-Velázquez 2006). Vega-Velázquez (2006) also applied a bio-economic model to take
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 21 of 199
into consideration the economic value of the fishery. In another analysis, Vega-Velázquez et al. (2010) used only the Biomass Dynamic Model and utilized the catch and effort time series from 1960-61 to the 2009-10 seasons. Biomass was estimated to be 14,120 mt in the last five seasons, which, when compared with a BMSY of 9,402 mt, represented a stock status 1.5 times larger than BMSY. Vega-Velázquez et al. (2010) estimated fishing mortality (F) at 0.10, half the FMSY (0.20). Effort (f) was 2,218,377 trap-hauls, representing 38% of fMSY (5,785,700 trap-hauls). Though the biomass, catch and effort values have been within the MSY parameters, Vega-Velázquez et al. (2010) recommended that effort should not be increased due to economic reasons based on the Maximum Economical Yield analysis results from a previous assessment (Vega-Velázquez 2006).
In 2015 an updated assessment was presented addressing the potential impact the fishery could have on age structure and how it may affect recruitment (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015). Data were collected from massive samplings2 to obtain information on length composition of all sizes and compare it to data from the commercial catch (Figure 3). Pooled data from 1997 to 2015 showed that a substantial fraction (88.7%) of the population is under the legal size of 82.5 mm of carapace length, only the remaining 11.3%, above the legal size, was available to the fishery. Given that the estimated average size at sexual maturity is of 73 mm of carapace length (Vega-Velázquez 2003), there was a proportion of spawning animals, under the legal size, that were unavailable to the fishery. This section of the population is known as pre-recruits, a portion of reproductive animals that are not vulnerable to the fishery, therefore becoming an important support to recruitment. Virtually no animals of the largest length classes above 115 mm appeared in the samples. The impact of the absence of large females of high reproductive value must be analysed in future assessments.
The 2015 assessment included an update in the application of the biomass dynamics model. Estimates of the status of the stock indicated a stable abundance trend since the mid-90s, with a slight decline in the last three years (Figure 4). This Figure also shows that in situ biomass since the mid-90s is approximately 60% over the level producing MSY. The biomass dynamics model used a catch of 1,520 mt in 2014-15 which was near 65% the estimated MSY of 2,358. The estimated current harvest rate is near 0.1, well below the harvest rate producing MSY of 0.24. While the overall methodology is not described in sufficient detail in the report, the results appear consistent throughout, with the exception of the fit of the observed catch to the model predictions. This is not a major problem but only an indication that there are implementation details that may need to be improved.
2 In this fishery the term massive sampling is loosely applied to the process of massively gathering data in dedicated sampling surveys designed to catch lobsters of all size. Data may include, but not exclusively, total catch per haul, effort, weight and length, other biological data. This type of massive sampling may be different from what is known in other fisheries in Mexico.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 22 of 199
a)
b)
Figure 3. Length distribution of red rock female lobsters (a), and males (b) in the central region of the Baja California as recorded from massive sampling (red line) and the commercial catch (grey bars). Reproduced from Vega-Velázquez et al. (2015).
The biomass dynamics report of 2015 (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015) presents what are described as “probability distributions” of the virgin biomass, the intrinsic rate of increase and the maximum sustainable yield which may be appropriate representations of the uncertainty associated to these parameters (Error! Reference source not found.). However, the methods section of the report doesn’t indicated how such distributions are computed and therefore it is difficult to establish the nature of the uncertainty they are supposed to represent. Also, if probability distributions are computed for model parameters, then it should be possible to compute the distribution for the abundance each year and construct confidence bounds.
The 2015 assessment (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015) also included estimated biomass trends obtained by means of a Virtual Population Analysis (VPA). The biomass trend was quite stable after the mid- 90s when a decline became evident towards the lowest abundance in decades (Figure 4). After 2008, the biomass has increased to one of its historic highs to start a declining trend from 2011. Declines in biomass appear to be the result of reduced recruitment which shows a similar trend in the same years (Figure 7). During the period of stability the biomass was estimated to be around 4,000 mt which is highly contrasting with the approximately 16,000 mt estimated using the biomass dynamics model. The discrepancy in biomass estimated with different analytical approaches is a direct reflection of the uncertainty in the control parameters in each model (e.g. intrinsic rate of increase,
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 23 of 199
carrying capacity, terminal fishing mortality, natural mortality). Consequently, the harvest rate estimated with the VPA is more than twice the estimated harvest rate from the biomass dynamics model.
The age specific fishing mortality rate, as shown in Figure 7, shows variations across different age groups, with lobsters age 11+ subject to a more intense fishing rate. Assuming that across any unit of effort the selectivity and catchability of the traps is constant, the different age classes of lobsters above the minimum legal size are subject to the same fishing pressure making F constant across ages and as estimated in this same assessments, a low value of 0.1. Consequently, rather than an instantaneous fishing mortality rate, the variations across age classes may be reflecting some form of unadjusted (maximum value is not one) exploitation rate proportional to the biomass for each age class. When biomass is very low, even low catch levels will produce a high harvest rate such as those at ages 11 and above. This should be clarified.
Figure 4. Estimated biomass trend using a biomass dynamics model on red rock lobster caught in the central region of the Pacific coast of Baja California. Total abundance is compared with the biomass level producing MSY and the current catch record. Reproduced from Vega- Velázquez et al. (2015).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 24 of 199
Table 4. Probability distributions of the unfished biomass Bo (top panel), the intrinsic rate of increase r (center panel) and the maximum sustainable yield MSY (bottom panel) of red rock lobster caught in the central region of the Pacific coast of Baja California, estimated using a biomass dynamics model. Reproduced from Vega-Velázquez et al. (2015).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 25 of 199
Figure 5. Total red rock lobster biomass estimated through VPA for data from the fishery in the central region of the Pacific coast of Baja California. Reproduced from Vega-Velázquez et al. (2015).
Figure 6. Recruitment of red rock lobster biomass estimated through VPA for data from the fishery in the central region of the Pacific coast of Baja California. Reproduced from Vega- Velázquez et al. (2015).
Figure 7. Average age specific estimated fishing mortality rate of red rock lobster using VPA. Fishing mortality is given on the y axis and age in years on the x axis. The estimates cover the period of 1990 to 2014. Reproduced from Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015.
Estimating mortality due to handling
During the 2014/15 season, out of a total of 48,082 individual lobsters caught during massive samplings (fisheries independent survey sampling), less than 1% (n= 443) were either killed or fatally injured, including lobsters under the minimum legal size that were returned to the sea. The re- certification report of 2011 states that: “During the evaluation process we found some information reporting that in one specific fishing area -the bycatch of sublegal lobster is substantially high (86%) which, depending on the post-release mortality, could be a concern (Shester, 2008). In order to
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 26 of 199
evaluate the degree of concern of this mortality, the assessment of the post-release mortality is highly recommended in incorporated into the stock assessment process”. This issue had been identified during the last re-certification process and included in condition 1.2.4. The condition required an evaluation of the potential post-release mortality for all released lobsters, not just those injured. The evaluation in the fourth surveillance audit concluded that the original request from the re-certification process had not been fully addressed and it was recommended that the issue still required further monitoring and assessment in subsequent audits.
Uncertainty
The stock assessment includes recognition of the necessity to account for the uncertainties associated with the statistical process of inference. Model uncertainty has been a major concern in the MSC assessment of this fishery and a requirement was added in past assessments to present an analytical approach to better examine the effect of size-based management actions. The latest version of the stock assessment was improved with the use of the ADAPT platform to run a tuned VPA. This analysis revealed relevant aspects such as the trend in recruitment and some effects of trap selectivity on older age classes. However, it is considered that the potential of the ADAPT platform is yet to be used to its full potential to investigate the original question on size-based management strategies. Although current considerations for model uncertainty in the stock assessment have been produced, in future reports the authors need to include thorough descriptions of methods, including full data tables, details with complete equations describing the population dynamics, the observation and the statistical models. If the ADAPT platform continues to be used the assessment, it should carry out a more in-depth analysis of age structure and trends to identify cohort strength in time and to better understand the effect of gear selectivity and size- based management strategies (See section 6.3.1 Recommendations p 72).
General conclusions from the stock assessment
The results of the stock assessment indicate that the stock of red rock lobster subject to the fishery in the central region of Baja California is well above the level producing MSY and that fishing takes place at a rate that is lower than that producing MSY. Despite significant differences in the absolute abundance estimated with both methods, the trends are similar and it is likely that the decline in abundance and recruitment is a process unrelated to the fishing activities that is not captured in the biomass dynamics model. The apparent health of the stock is reinforced by the data on the length distribution of the catch compared to that of the population. These data show that every year an important proportion of lobsters are left to grow and reproduce which assures continuous supply of animals of legal size (See section 6.3.1 Recommendations p 72).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 27 of 199
3.3.5. Management
The general management goal for this fishery is in agreement with the LGPAS and was described by Vega-Velázquez (2006) as to “guarantee the sustainable exploitation of the resource, safeguarding the reproductive capacity at a level allowing sufficient recruitment to the fishery”. The fishery harvest strategy is based on all governmental specifications for the fishery as stated in Regulations, Guidelines (NOMs) and specific provisions. Recently, these strategies have been considered and included in a draft document that contains the Management Plan for Spiny Lobsters of the Baja California Peninsula. The draft Plan is still awaiting approval for final publication. Overall, the fishery operates under two broad regulatory mechanisms: a) limited access granting concessions that can last up to 20 years and are renewable; and b) “traditional” regulatory tools such as minimum size, temporal closures and protection of berried females.
Zona Pacífico Norte, Áreas Concesionadas a cada Cooperativa 29.00
28.80
28.60 Pescadores Nacionales de Abulón 28.40
28.20
28.00 La Purísima
27.80 Buzos y Pescadores
27.60 Bahía Tortugas
27.40 Emancipación 27.20
27.00 California de San Ignacio Progreso 26.80 Leyes de Reforma 26.60
26.40 Punta Abreojos
26.20 -116.00 -115.60 -115.20 -114.80 -114.40 -114.00 -113.60 -113.20 Figure 8. Areas in central Baja California under the Concession regime for each cooperative member of FEDECOOP that is part of the red rock lobster client group. Reproduced from Ramade (2010).
Renewable concessions are granted for the harvesting areas and in the case of the FEDECOOP cooperatives are used for extraction of benthic resources such as lobster, abalone, sea snails, octopus and algae. Each concession includes a clear description of the exclusive fishing zone issued to each cooperative. Figure 8 shows the polygons that are covered by the concession to each client cooperative. This scheme is rigorously controlled by cooperatives and ensures a limitation on fishing effort within concessions and also creates a strong incentive to prevent illegal fishing by poachers.
The Red Book is a compilation of the status of numerous commercial fisheries in Mexico published in several volumes by the INAPESCA. The lobster chapter in the Red Book (Vega-Velázquez 2006) is a document that serves as informative support for the CNP. The Red Book defines that the stock “optimum” level is when the biomass is Bo/2 (half the unfished biomass) which under the assumption of a symmetric production curve, represents the level producing MSY.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 28 of 199
Although the definition in the Red Book is not explicitly binding, the team recognized in the language of several documents the concept of a target reference point “consistent with BMSY”. The Management Plan Draft established that the main goal is to “continue harvesting at a sustainable level” (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2014). The diagnostics section in the Plan indicates that the stock is above an “optimal level” of Bo/2 and the catch near MSY.
One regular approach in the assessment of this stock is the use of a biomass dynamics model with symmetric production curve which has its maximum production level at Bo/2 (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015). Therefore it can be concluded that the sustainability goal in the Plan implies that the stock’s desirable state, the target, is the biomass producing MSY. The CNP stated in the 2012 version (the current version), that the stock is “slightly above the optimum level” in terms of Bact/Bo, which is also interpreted as an indication that the target reference point for this fishery is BMSY.
This fishery has not explicitly declared a limit reference point or a level where recruitment would be impaired as defined in MSC CR V1.3 CB2.3.1. There is no indication of any approach to a limit reference point, except that the Plan includes a “Line of Action” to estimate target and limit reference points. As it is, the management of this fishery evaluates the status of the stock and is expected to take action if the stock drops below the target. This is considered to be an unusual situation because the tools (such as provisions in the CNP) are such that they prevent effort to increase indiscriminately and recruitment is protected through a minimum legal size above the size of first reproduction and protection of berried females.
The red rock lobster fishery of Baja California has operated under the application of traditional passive management strategies such as minimum legal size and protection of egg bearing females. There are season closures that are established in relation to the reproductive activity of the lobster in different regions, but it is not related to a strategy to control fishing mortality. For this reason, there are no binding documents with explicit, pre-agreed harvest control rules that are designed to reduce effort in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points. The lobster chapter in the Red Book (Vega-Velázquez 2006) however declared that if 퐸푠푡 =
퐵푡퐴푐푡푢푎푙⁄퐵푀푆푌 “stock status is determined according to the following decision rule:” Status 1. Est ≤ 1: The stock is below optimum level ⇒ Recovery strategy required. Status 2. Est > 1: The stock is above optimum level ⇒ Fishery with further development potential. Status 3. Est = 1: The stock is at optimum level ⇒ The fishery is at the adequate level.
Fishing effort is regulated based on a process that starts with an internal evaluation of fisher performance in each cooperative. Fishers (a captain and his crew of one or two members) are allowed to participate in the next fishing season by observing their productivity during the last 5 fishing seasons. All fishers have to be members of the Cooperative and have to show a positive level of production to continue their participation. Next, the harvesting level for the following season is planned based on the analysis of the last 5 fishing seasons taking into account stock size, biological, economic indicators and all other recommendations by INAPESCA. This information is used to determine if it is necessary to modify the number of boats and gear or fishers that will participate in the fishing season. When changes are deemed necessary, communication between the fishers and
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 29 of 199
the authority takes place in workshops and regular sessions of the Lobster Fishery Committee to produce official agreements and communications. Documentation was provided to demonstrate a process that led to changes to duration of the fishing season due to environmental variability which caused changes in the lobster reproductive behaviour (SAGARPA 2014).
Due to the high value of the lobster fishery and in order to maintain the stock size and the conservation of the resource, the cooperatives developed an inspection and surveillance system inside their concession area to eliminate illegal fishing. This system represents a high cost of around $ 2.5 million dollars per year to the 9 cooperatives together, for operation and an investment cost of around $ 1.5 million dollars for communication equipment, vehicles, boats, etc. The system is legally recognized as a Community Surveillance Committee. Its implementation has had positive results minimizing illegal fishing along the central region. The Surveillance Committee also participates in the enforcement of the legal minimal size by double checking catch with the Quality Control group of the Cooperatives during the landing process. In the case of deception by a fisher member, economic sanctions or fishing activity suspensions could be applied including the potential exclusion of membership from the cooperative.
In 1993 the NOM-006PESC-1993 was published to provide a suite of specific regulations for the harvest of all species of lobster within the jurisdiction of the Federation in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean and the Pacific, including the Gulf of California. Several modifications have been made to this Norm with the latest in 2009.
Season closures are defined after technical consultations with INAPESCA (and published in the Official Gazette). The closures are determined by zones and the client group is located in zone 1 where closures are from February 16th to September 15th (Figure 9; DOF 2014).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 30 of 199
Figure 9. Regional distribution of the different season closure dates for the fishery of the three lobster species found along the west coast of the Baja California Peninsula. Reproduced from DOF (2015). Erratum: The label for the inside Gulf zone should be IV.
3.3.6. Information
In accordance with the NOM-06-PESCA-1993, each Cooperative inside their operative structure has established a Fisheries Department which allows for the observation of the fishery and the maintenance of fishery records. This fulfils the obligation to support and participate in any research conducted by INAPESCA. Based on the yearly Lobster Fishery Committee meetings and workshops, several monitoring programs are carried out: 1) a monitoring program for recording the monthly catch and effort information; 2) a monthly sampling program of the size and sex structure of all catch from one fishing vessel during the season; 3) a monthly sampling program for the size and sex structure of a proportion of all commercial catch; and 4) a monitoring sampling program that analyzes the reproductive stages of lobster during the closed season. Market prices are monitored during the fishing season in order to evaluate the economic operational feasibility and to assess the production costs against the potential earnings when making decisions on an early closure for the season to avoid low economic gains. This occurred during the 2008-09 season when the fishing season was closed 10 days earlier than planned.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 31 of 199
3.4. Principle Two: Ecosystems Background
3.4.1. Ecosystem
The west coast of Baja California, Mexico is a highly variable ecosystem that transitions from cold upwelling areas in the north to a subtropical ecosystem in the south. The area is characterized by high productivity compared to areas in southern California. In the central zone where lobster abundance and captures are higher and most of the red rock lobster fishery is based, there are two important upwelling systems: Punta Eugenia and Punta Abreojos (Figure 10). The upwelling persists throughout the year but is most intense in March through June (Bakun and Nelson 1977 in SCS 2011).
Oceanographic processes occurring in this area are associated with the California Current (CC) and the Coastal Countercurrent (CCC) at the southern edge of the California Current System (SSC) (Figure 10). Low temperature and salinity, high levels of dissolved oxygen characterize the CC and a continuous supply of nutrients while the CCC is warm and salty. The stages of the reproductive process of the red rock lobster are synchronized with the cycles of temperature and upwelling (Vega 2003) and the event of El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
Biological changes that occur during ENSO events are related to reduced upwelling, lower inshore nutrients (Lynn et al. 1995) and delayed phytoplankton blooms (Lenarz et al. 1995). It is postulated that because large-scale environmental changes in the Californian current ecosystem have such a large effect on the ecology of the region, other natural processes, such as competition and predation, may not be as important in shaping the abundance and composition of the communities in the region, as environmental factors (Chelton et al. 1982).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 32 of 199
Figure 10. California current system. Blue arrow: California Current; red arrow: California Contra Current coastal surface; pink arrow: California Contra Current deep ocean. Reproduced from Alfredo Ruíz Chavarría 2013.
Kelp forest communities, where lobster live, dominated by Macrocystis pyrifera, Laminaria farlowii, and Pterygophora spp. are characteristic of the cold water upwelling areas in the north with decreasing species diversity in southern latitudes. Sea urchins (Strongolycerotus purpureus, S. franciscanus) and abalone (Haliotis rufescens, H. fulgens, H. cracherodii) are typical herbivores that feed on the kelp and, together with lobster, inhabit the kelp forests. The biomass of both abalone and lobster do not differ much latitudinally. The species composition and diversity of other species, however, changes from the north to the south. A large number of fish species such as kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus), Pacific jack mackerel (Trachurus symetricus), and yellowtail (Seriola lalandii) are associated with kelp. Carnivores include the common dolphin (Delphinus capensis) and bottlenose dolphins (Turniops truncatus) as well as other marine mammals like humpback whales (Megaptera novaengliae), grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus), Pacific Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina) and Californian sea Lions (Zalophus californianus).
The seabed in this region is sandy and cobbled, most of the rocky substrate is covered by coralline red algae, and there are gorgonian corals. Lobster habitats are rocky areas from the lower intertidal zone to approximately 100 m depth. The adults move from deeper to shallower areas (less than 20 m) for reproduction and “hatching” from March to May. In this complex ecosystem, lobsters are members of assemblages that are rich in coastal pelagic species (sardine, northern anchovy and
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 33 of 199
mackerel); demersal-reef fish (cabrilla, grouper, tilefish, whitefish, sheephead, triggerfish, dogfish shark, nurse shark, etc.) and benthic communities of flora and fauna associated with macro-algae forests and seagrass beds (Vega et al. 2014), as mentioned above. The fauna also includes crustaceans (crabs, etc.) and mollusks (limpets, chitons, snails, abalone and clams). Such assemblages of flora and fauna play an important role in the life cycle of the lobster, through the various interspecific interactions (protection, food supply, predation) within benthic communities (Vega et al. 2014).
Most of the fishery takes place within coastal area of the Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve (Reserva de la Biosfera El Vizcaíno) except Cedros Island, and is within a 5 km band along the shore. Vizcaino Reserve covers 25,467.9km2 of terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems. It the largest in the world under the category of Biosphere Reserve and “occurs at the southern edge of giant kelp (M. pyrifera) and the marine ecosystem can be characterized as temperate to sub-tropical with sea surface temperature ranging from 12-26oC throughout the year” (Shester 2008). The Reserve’s west coast is in the tropical temperate transition zone of the North American Pacific containing the ecosystems described above.
According to information from the Reserve Management Program (INE 2000), the gray whale (E. robustus) reproduces and overwinters from December to April, mainly in the Ojo de Liebre and San Ignacio lagoons that are situated within the Reserve, and are UNESCO World Heritage Sites as sanctuaries for this species (Figure 11). Other marine mammals present on the west coast of the reserve are the Californian sea Lion (Zalophus californianus) and the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), which have breeding colonies on Natividad, San Roque and Asunción islands in the Reserve, coinciding with the concession areas of the Buzos y Pescadores, California de San Ignacio and Leyes de Reforma cooperatives (Figure 11).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 34 of 199
Figure 11. Map of El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve depicting reserve boundary and lagoon habitat of gray whales in purple. (Reproduced from http://www.cetaceanhabitat.org/el_vizcaino.php#).
3.4.2. Non-target species information and monitoring
As mention above, each cooperative has a fisheries department for the observation of the fishery. Records of non-target species are also required; therefore, a system has been established for gathering this information through the use of the existing fishing logbooks (NOM 06-PESC-1993).
The logbook system, designed by INAPESCA and FEDECOOP, records data on retained and bycatch species, including species used for bait, in an “observations” column. From the 2011/12 season to date, the client has provided evidence of the use of the logbooks to report interactions with non- target species.
At the start of the non-target monitoring program the agreed sampling effort was to record data for at least one “lobster fishing team” (equipo langostero vessel and traps) per cooperative and fishing area on one fishing trip each month. There are cooperative technicians that report these data to FEDECOOP on a monthly basis as part of the regular fishery monitoring system.
The FEDECOOP Technical Representatives believe continuous work with the fishers will improve bycatch data recorded in the logbook. Currently data collection on bycatch species is not seen as a priority and the quality of the data depends on the fisher. Some records contain species level details, others records only go down to groups and they are not recording whether organisms encountered were retained, discarded dead or alive. The Technical Representatives assert that due to the fishing conditions, it is difficult to record more detailed data, including size or destination of the bycatch and that the fishers have commitment to record data to the species or group level. However, there is not currently a standardized data recording process to assure consistent resolution of information between cooperatives. In logbooks, the “observations” column is used to report “incidental catch” but in wide categories such as fish, sharks, birds, etc., without specifying the species or the
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 35 of 199
destination of the catch. Tropical lobsters are noted in the catch column along with red rock lobsters, at species level. Only the data recorded for lobsters in the larger size categories is verified after landing to crosscheck with the data from the logbooks.
The other two data-collecting system for this fishery are the massive samplings (See Footnote pError! Bookmark not defined.) conducted during the closed season (three fishing days with 25 traps) and during the fishing season (one “lobster fishing team” per cooperative and fishing field on one fishing trip each month) and secondly, the commercial samples taken at landings. Massive samplings are not collecting non-target species data at the moment. The total number of traps observed for non-target interactions in the 2014/15 season increased from the 2013/14 and 2012/13 seasons, not only in percentage but also in absolute number (Table 5).
Table 5. Number of traps observed for bycatch data in the fishing logbooks for three seasons. Reproduced from Ramade-Villanueva et al. 2015. Number of traps Season Number of traps % of total traps observed for bycatch 2012/13 2,220,729 599,597 27% 2013/14 2,192,507 909,091 41.5% 2014/15 1,940,532 1,089,127 56%
3.4.3. Overview of Non-target Catch
In an MSC assessment, non-target catch consist of species that retained by the fishery (usually because they are commercially valuable or because they are required to be retained by management rules) and bycatch species that have been taken incidentally and are returned to the water (usually because they have no commercial value). Bait used in the fishery, either caught by the fishery under assessment or bought from other sources, is considered under the retained species category (CR V1.3 2013).
The retained and bycatch species are qualified as “main” taking into consideration the weight, value or vulnerability of species caught. In the MSC system, a species that comprises less than 5% of the total catch by weight may normally be considered to be a “minor” species in the catch, unless it is of high value to the fisher or of particular vulnerability, or if the total catch of the fishery is large, in which case even 5% may be a considerable catch. A species that normally comprises 20% or more of the total catch by weight would almost always be considered a ‘main’ retained or bycatch species (GCB3.5.2, GCB3.8.2 GCR V1.3 2013).
Non-target species captured in Baja California lobster fisheries include fish, various invertebrates including gastropods and crustaceans, and birds (Appendix 6.1 Summary of non-target species for fishing season 2014/15). Non-target species categorized for evaluation are listed in Table 6.
All grouped data presented in this chapter include the Abuloneros y Langostero cooperative operating on Isla Guadalupe, which is no longer considered in the Unit of Certification for this
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 36 of 199
evaluation. This inclusion will increase the apparent impacts of the fishery so lends assurance to findings being particularly conservative in a precautionary manner. Table 6. Summary of Non-target Species as Categorized for Evaluation.
Performance indicator Species Rationale 2.1 Retained non- Bait, Main retained >5% of the total catch Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) target by weight (294%) Main bycatch based on vulnerability (top Horn shark (Heterodontus francisci) predators, vulnerable life history) 2.2 Bycatch Swell sharks (Cephaloscyllium Main bycatch based on vulnerability (top ventriosum) predators, vulnerable life history) CITES Ap.I, NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) (Special protection) Californian sea lions (Zalophus NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 (Special 2.3 ETP species californianus) protection) NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 (Special Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) protection)
A total of 11 non-target species/ groups of species, not including the two tropical lobster species (Blue and green lobsters), are captured in traps according to data collected in the fishing logbooks for the 2012 to 2015 seasons (Table 7). Shester (2008) concluded that the total non-target species catch in this fishery represented approximately 13% by weight of the lobster catch and bycatch rates were moderately low for most species.
Other species such as abalone (Haliotis sp.), caracol (conch shells), algae (Gelidium sp.), sharks and finfish (approximately 21 species) are taken in the area of the lobster fishery by the members of the Cooperatives. These activities do not typically effect or interact with lobster fishing operations as the cooperatives use separate boats, fishers and gear for these activities (Vega et al. 2014)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 37 of 199
Table 7. Estimates of incidental catch by species group and number of individuals for season extrapolating for a subsampling. NA: data no available. Reproduced from Shester 2008 and Ramade-Villanueva et al. 2015. Common name (species/group Scientific name* 2006/07** 2012/13*** 2013/14*** 2014/15*** of species) Crabs Cancer sp. (mainly) 143,418 38,306 38,434 34,158
Finfishes **** 35,624 34,559 24,499 21,947 Octopus vulgaris Octopus 1,851 28,821 6,828 9,073 O. bimaculoides Heterodontus francisci Sharks 31,922 7,262 4,901 5,867 Cephaloscyllium ventriosum Moray eels Gymnothorax sp. - 2,072 2,159 2,245
Sea snails Gastropoda 32,487 2,262 4,520 2,145 Sea birds Phalacrocorax sp. 16,655 241 65 57 (cormorant) Parastichopus Sea cucumber - - 12 30 parvimensis Starfish Acansthaster sp. - - - 9
Abalone Haliotis sp. - 8 2 2
Sea urchins Strongolycerotus sp. - - 12 - Panulirus inflatus Tropical lobsters NA NA NA NA P. gracilis Total 261,957 113,531 81,432 75,533 * An exhaustive list of species is not provided, only the main ones are given based on Shester (2008) and SCS (2011). **Data from Shester (2008). *** Data from FEDECOOP logbooks ****See Table 9
The data for 2006/07 season are from the study conducted by Shester (2008) for his doctoral dissertation, whose purpose was to cover some information gaps found in the first evaluation. The differences in the numbers of organisms reported by Shester and by the logbooks have been extensively discussed with FEDECOOP in the audits and for this evaluation; both make extrapolations from a relatively limited subsample of data taken from one area of the cooperative territory (Table 8). There are no written accounts on plausible explanations for such differences, but it has been suggested that smaller sample sizes, across shorter temporal periods in two particular locations (limited sampling) in the 2006/07 report may have led to overestimation of bycatch.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 38 of 199
Table 8. Main differences in the catch of retained and bycatch species between data from the Shester study (2008) and data from the logbooks for the 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15 seasons of FEDECOOP. Logbook data Shester (2008) (2012 to 2015 seasons) Two of ten (Punta Abreojos Number of cooperatives Ten and Bahía Tortugas) Number of traps observed 4,940 traps 865,938 average
Months January, September to November September to February (inclusive)
Data collection method Observers Captains logbooks
Number of species 40 11 Number of cormorants 16,655 123 average captured
Information on the weight of non-target species (bait is not included) was not available for this evaluation, but FEDECOOP estimates that “the lobster traps, in contrast with most other fishing gear, only capture 0.2% of organisms of species other than lobster and most of these are returned to the sea alive” (Ramade et al. 2013b). Data for the 2012/13 and 2013/14 seasons are 3.6% and 2.4% respectively by number, according to the FEDECOOP reports.
3.4.4. Retained Catch
Tropical lobsters
The biota in this tropical-temperate transition zone, where there is a convergence of cold water from the California Current and warm water from the North Equatorial Current, includes three lobster species. In addition to the temperate red rock lobster (P. interruptus) the regions also supports two tropical lobsters: the blue lobster (P. inflatus) and the green lobster (P. gracilis) (Figure 12), which are caught incidentally and retained for their commercial use by some cooperatives of the UoA/UoC. The three species of lobsters are visually distinguishable.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 39 of 199
Figure 12. Distribution of red rock Lobsters in the southern region of California current. The red dots correspond to red rock lobster (P. interruptus) and the blue dots represent tropical lobsters (P. inflatus and P. gracilis). The circles indicate stock units of P. interrupturs: A. southern stock. B. central stock; C. northern stock, neighbouring the USA California stock. Reproduced from Vega et al. 2014.
The blue lobster (P. inflatus) is endemic to the Mexican Pacific and the green lobster (P. gracilis) has a wider range, extending south to the coasts of Peru (Vega et al. 2014). Red rock lobsters of temperate environments coexist with these two tropical lobster species. The coincidence of the three species is evident in the area between San Juanico and Isla Margarita, outside the UoA/UoC (circle A in Figure 12), although small numbers of blue lobsters do appear with rare green lobsters in the central zone B (zone B in Figure 1) (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015).
The catch volume for blue and green lobsters for Baja California Sur, is 183 tons on average for both species for the period 2012-2015 (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015). For all the lobster fisheries of the Baja California Peninsula, it is estimated that 95% of the catch is red rock lobster and the remaining 5% contains the two other species (Vega et al. 2014).
In the period of the certified fishery (2004-2014), the average blue lobster catch is estimated at 11 mt (0.75% of the total for this region). In the average regional catch for the period 2010-2014, tropical lobsters represent 11.5% of the total for the state of BCS (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015). In accordance with the distribution pattern of the tropical lobster species, the largest percentage of this catch corresponds to blue lobster but in small numbers, mainly in the southern part of the central zone of BC, and therefore this affects only two of the cooperatives of the federation (SCS
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 40 of 199
2004). According to these data, the combined catch of tropical lobster species does not exceed 5% of the total catch; therefore they are considered “minor” species.
For green and blue lobsters, minimum catch size is cephalothorax length of 82.5 mm (NOM 06-PESC- 1993). The closed season for the two tropical lobsters coincides with that of the red rock lobster in the central zone of the Baja California Pacific from February 16 to September 15, as covered in the SAGARPA agreement published in the official gazette of September 24, 2014, which revises the agreement published on August 31, 2005. Other management measures relevant to all three lobster species are considered in the management plan for red rock lobsters (Panulirus sp.) (Vega et al. 2014).
Catch data for tropical lobsters is taken during the massive samplings conducted by INAPESCA and in the fishing logbooks used by the cooperatives. Catch data for these two species are mentioned in the stock assessment document presented by INAPESCA (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015). During the fishing season 2014/2015, 2,936 kg of blue lobster catch was reported (no catch for green lobster) (M. Ramade, personal communication, June 2016).
Tropical lobsters are sold in local markets due to the low price with respect to the red lobster.
Finfish species
The data reported for non-target species, collected via logbooks, includes the “finfish” category (Table 7), which groups 13 different fish species (Table 9). Through personal communications with the FEDECOOP technicians and the client representative, the assessment team confirmed that several fish species in this list are used as bait in the red rock lobster fishery. Main bait species include; vieja (Semicossyphus pulcher), lopon (Ophiodon elongates) and cabrilla or verdillo (barred sand bass - Paralabrax nebulifer and P. clathratus) and ocean whitefish or blanco (Caulolatilus princeps). Two of the most abundant species, vieja and blanco, are captured by the Coop Abuloneros y Langosteros in Guadalupe Island (FEDECOOP - Reporte de Carnada temporada 2012/13), this coop is no longer part of the UoA/UoC.
Most of the finfish species used as bait are caught locally from unmanaged fish stocks. The fishery for barred sand bass (Paralabrax sp.) is regulated in the CNP (DOF 2012a), which considers management guidelines and strategies, management measures, reference points and status.
The retained species that are used for bait are reported in landing tickets (aviso de arribo). Depending on the availability of the main source of bait (sardines), some of the “finfish” retained species are used for bait. There is a low percentage of species that are captured and consumed locally, but not recorded at landing, for example, sea bass.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 41 of 199
Table 9. Total number of individual species in the “finfish” category caught in lobster traps operated during the 2014/15 fishing season, extrapolated from 56% (1,089,127 traps) observed traps to the total number of the traps operated by the ten cooperatives under FEDECOOP. Reproduced from personal communication with Ramade, 2016. Spanish Number of Scientific Name Common Name organisms Vieja Semicossyphus pulcher 7,423
Lopon Ophiodon elongatus 5,175
Cabrilla/Verdillo Paralabrax clathratus and P. nebulifer 4,969
Blanco Caulolatilus princeps 2,478
Naranjo Hypspops rubicundus 923
Jurel Seriola lalandi 332
Roncador Anisotremus davidsoni 159
Lenguado Paralichthys spp 123
Rocot Sebastes mystinus, S. miniatus and S. caurinus 86
Mojarra Embiotoca jacksoni 77
Chololo Kelletia kelletii 77
Barbito Umbrina roncador 77
Curvina Argyrosomus regius 75
Total 21,974
The captures of species in the “finfish” category are only recorded as numbers of organisms; consequently the contribution of “finfish” to the total catch volume for the fishery cannot be accurately estimated. By using the number of individual lobsters captured the assessment team for the third Surveillance in 2014 roughly estimated that the contribution of the “finfish” category is less than 5% of the total lobster catch landed, therefore, it is unlikely that any of the finfish species listed as bait are a “main” retained species.
Bait: Sardines and Finfish
Bait species are particularly important in this assessment. The daily biomass of bait exceeds the lobster catch throughout the fishery. Approximately 2.3 to 3.5 kg of bait is used per kg of landed lobster catch, amounting roughly from 4,500 to 5,000 t of bait every season (M. Ramade pers. com).
FEDECOOP provided a summary of the data collected by each cooperative on bait used in the 2014/15 seasons (Table 10). These data are collected each month during the fishing season (September to February) using the form “Monthly Bait Production Records - Lobster Fishery”. The
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 42 of 199
minutes from a meeting conducted in September 2010 (Minuta Reunion Condicionantes Langosta, 2010) confirmed that fishermen are aware and have agreed to provide information about the species, origin and volume used for bait in the fishery on a monthly basis.
Several finfish species are used as bait, data for these was not provided at the species-level but grouped in the “Fish” and “Whitefish” categories. Bait in these categories is obtained from two sources: (1) bycatch from the lobster fishery (Table 9) and (2) other fisheries occurring within the area of the unit of assessment. However, no information was provided to allow estimating the contribution for each of these sources (Appendix 6.1 Summary of non-target species for fishing season 2014/15). Table 10. Volume in kilograms and corresponding percentage of of bait species/species group used in the red rock lobster fishery. Information was obtained from landing records and logbooks from ten FEDECOOP cooperatives for the 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 lobster fishing seasons. NR: Not Reported. Reproduced from SCS 2014 and Ramade-Villanueva et al. 2015.
2013/14 2014/15 % of % of Category Volume (kg) Volume (kg) Bait bait “Sardines”-Small Pelagics 2,513,435 65% 1,898,139 53% (Ensenada) “Sardines” Small 1,210,376 31% 1,553,023 43% Pelagics(Local) White ocean fish 39,596 1% NR* - Fish NR - 59,294 2% Mackerel 39,460 1% 57,805 2% Sheephead 3,869 0% NR* 0% Bonito 15,825 0% 5,078 0% Sea Bass 43,298 1% NR* - Skipjack 2,000 0% 295 0% Others 17,319 0% NR - Squid NR - 633 0% Carcajes (Waste) - 0% 3,308 0%
Total volume bait (kg) 3,885,178 3,577,575
*It is likely that these data were grouped under the category “fish”.
The vast majority (>97%) of bait utilized in the red rock lobster fishery are “sardines” (Table 10).The client uses the generic “sardine” term for bait purchased in Ensenada and caught locally. The “sardine” category groups several small pelagic species, including Pacific sardine, anchoveta, mackerel, thread herring and others (M. Ramade, personal communication, June 2016). In absence of volumes corresponding to the different small pelagic species the team used the landing data from the commercial small pelagics fishery off the coast of Baja California as a proxy to estimate proportions. In the 2014 fishing season, Pacific sardine comprised 98.12% of the total catch of small pelagics in the western coast of Baja California while other species such as mackerel and anchovy summed to 1.88%
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 43 of 199
(Enciso and Cotero 2015). It was determined that Pacific sardine Sardinops sagax was the dominant species in this group, and thus scored as main. However, because species’ proportion in the small pelagics fishery is highly variable across different years, a condition was placed in information for retained species (PI 2.1.3) with the aim to obtain more data to assign contributions of different small pelagic species with greater accuracy.
Despite that Pacific sardine Sardinops sagax is obtained from outside the UoA, their contribution is calculated in relation to the volumes of total catch of the UoA. The large volumes of Pacific sardine represent approximately 70% of the total catch of the red rock lobster fishery, and therefore are considered a “main” species (Appendix 6.1 Summary of non-target species for fishing season 2014/15).
Pacific sardine are small pelagic forage species, their distribution extends from of Baja California to British Columbia. “Sardine populations exhibit extreme natural variation in abundance. The reason for the fluctuating nature of Pacific sardine populations is still unknown, but is hypothesized to be associated with changes in sea surface temperature and upwelling” (The State of California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) 2016).
It is generally understood that sardines off the West Coast of North America are categorized into three separate subpopulations or stocks: the “cold” stock expanding from northern Baja California to Alaska, the “temperate” stock off the coast of Central Baja California and Southern Baja California and a “warm” stock in the Gulf of California (Hill et al. 2015, OPC 2016). The distribution ranges of the “temperate” and “cold” stocks might overlap, but since they migrate in synchrony across north and south, these two stocks do not co-inhabit (Hill et al. 2015). The Mexican sardine fishery captures all three stocks, and in the port of Ensenada, Baja California landings are a combination of the cold and temperate stocks (Uraga 2015). The red rock lobster fishery sources approximately 55% of sardines from Ensenada, Baja and the remaining 45% of sardines from local catches within the area of the Unit of Assessment. Thus sardine used for bait in the red rock lobster fishery is coming from cold and temperate stocks.
Though an assessment of the Pacific Sardine in the United States of America, published in 2015 by Hill et al., focuses only on the cold stock, all other past assessments do not make a clear distinction between the cold and temperate stock. In lieu of an assessment for the temperate stock the team referenced an abstract presented by Enciso et al. (2014) at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Trinational Sardine Forum in Baja California Mexico. The abstract for this assessment is of the “stock on the west coast of Baja California”, without any additional information about the data used the team assumes this assessment does not make a distinction between the temparate and cold stocks. Using a catch-MSY approach (Martell and Froese 2012) for catch-data from 1980 to 2013, Enciso et al. (2014) estimate that:
“[…] the catch at maximum sustainable yield (CMSY) was 138, 147 t and the 95% confidence internal between 102,338-186,486; the carrying capacity K=1,043,483 t (515,515 t < K < 2,112,172 t); intrinsic population growth rate r=0.530 years-1 (0.222 years-1 < r < 1.260
years-1) and biomass at MSY (BMSY) = 521,742 t (257,758 t < BRMSY < 1,056,086 t).”
The volume of sardine used as bait in the red rock lobster fishery in 2014 (3,723 mt) represents only a small percentage of the total catch estimated for the West Coast of Baja California. Under these
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 44 of 199
conditions, it was considered unlikely that the sardine catch for bait could have a critical effect on either the cold or temperate stock.
The Mexican sardine fishery off the west coast of Baja California are managed under the Fisheries Management Plan for small pelagics fishery (sardines, anchovies, mackerel and related) for Northwest Mexico (Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarela y afines) del Noroeste de México (DOF 2012c). This plan currently respects a minimum legal size requirement of 150 mm standard length (NOM-003-PESC-1993) and effort control measures limiting the size of the fishing fleet. The Baja California Peninsula sardine fishery is regulated in the CNP (DOF 2012a), which defines management guidelines and strategies, management measures, reference points and status. For the small scale vessels targeting sardines, only the minimum size regulation is applicable. Sardines caught locally are recorded in landing tickets (aviso de arribo).
Size data from sardines captured from the Central coast, in Punta Abreojos and Bahía Asunción, indicate that sardines are above the 150 mm minimum length requirement (Figure 13).
The team was provided with information on the sizes recorded for Pacific sardines.
Figure 13. Size frequency distribution of sardines (Sardinops sagax) used as bait in the 2014/15 season (Source: 2014-2015 lobster season report). Title: Pacific Sardine Size Distribution. X axis: Standard length (mm). Y axis: Frequency (%). Reproduced from Ramade- Villanueva et al. 2015.
3.4.5. Bycatch
The bycatch in this fishery is considered moderately low (Shester 2008). According to the analysis of the data from the logbooks there are 11 species or groups of species that are caught incidentally (Table 7), but the end use (retained, discarded alive/dead) is not recorded.
During the onsite meetings the FEDECOOP technicians, the client representative and the team discussed the current practices and end use of the bycatch species. The team was informed that some bycatch species are retained (e.g. sea bass, green lobster, blue lobster), others are discarded
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 45 of 199
(such as birds that tend to be dead because they were caught on the bottom and to expire before they reach the boat (Shester 2008) and others are released alive (e.g. sharks, crabs, and others). The assessment team understands that some species are not retained because they have no commercial value, however there is no written or visual evidence of bycatch species that are returned to the water either dead or alive. Non-target catch and its end use (discarded alive or dead or retained) were also studied by Shester (2008) but it was not possible for him to estimate the mortality of the discarded animals.
The numbers of organism caught are low, therefore, the team considers that none of the species fall under the category of “main bycatch species”. However, there are two species of sharks with vulnerable life story traits, horn sharks (Heterodontus francisci) and swell sharks (Cephaloscyllium ventriosum), with records of 4,156 and 1,711 individuals captured, respectively during the 2014/15 season (M. Ramade, personal communication, January 8 2016). H. francisci is considered Data Deficient by the IUCN and C. ventriosum is categorized as Least Concern (Carlisle, A.B. 2015; Villavicencio-Garayzar et al. 2015). Neither species have any commercial value and are not retained (FEDECOOP technician and M. Ramade, personal communication, November 17 and 18, 2015). Shester (2008) states that “the majority of the horn sharks reached the boat alive, though several fishermen intentionally killed them before releasing them”. Neither of these two shark species is included in NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 for protected species or within the text of NOM-029-PESC- 2006 which specifies regulations to promote responsible fishing of sharks and rays, and provides specific protections for some named species.
Shester (2008) estimated large number of catches of cormorants (Phalocrocorax pelagicus), or ducks, as are called by fishermen (Table 7). Shester’s numbers are extrapolations from a small sample. It has been suggested that Shester’s sample was smaller and focused only on two fishing zones, while the logbook data encompass a larger sampling effort in all the fishing zones of the ten cooperatives (Table 8). Cormorants are caught when they dive into traps on the bottom and all are dead before they reached the boat (Shester 2008, FEDECOOP technician and M. Ramade, personal communication, November 17 and 18, 2015). One of the technicians from a cooperative asked a researcher from the University of Ensenada who has a bird monitoring research program in Guerrero Negro and Laguna San Ignacio about Shester’s numbers (2008) for the cormorant bycatch. According to the expert, the high figures could be the result of an atypical year for the migration of that species. It is also assumed that the larger catches in some years could mainly consist of less experienced juveniles that are looking for food when it is not available and they tend to resort to taking bait from the traps.
During the 2012/2013 season, FEDECOOP conducted a survey of captains, who are responsible for completing the logbooks, in order to determine the frequency and intensity of the cormorant bycatch and the conditions under which they are caught incidentally. There was a 97% response rate by the captains, with an average of 20 years of experience in the fishery. Seventy-four percent of the respondents indicated that on average they incidentally catch 3.06 “ducks” per team per fishing season, with a range of one to ten “ducks” per season. The number of cormorants captured incidentally that was reported in the survey (221) was very similar to the extrapolation made from the monitoring of 26% of the fishing effort (241 cormorants, Table 7).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 46 of 199
Shester (2008) considered that cormorants play a pivotal role in the ecosystem as top predators. Nevertheless, P. pelagicus is considered Least Concern by IUCN and is not listed in the Mexican national binding agreement for endangered species (NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010). The estimated number of organisms captured during the fishing season 2014/15 was very marginal (Table 7). This species reaches a weight of 1.8 kg (Samaniego et al. 2007), 57 individuals were captured during the fishing season 2014/15, equivalent to 102,6 kg (0% of the total catch by weight). Therefore, the assessment team considers that this species is under the category of “minor”.
Shester (2008) mentions that other species captured incidentally such as crabs and snails are released alive.
No formal written procedures or best practices for non-target catch were available for the assessment team but according to information shared during the onsite meeting, the fishers customarily release animals that are not lobsters or other species of commercial interest (Ramade, M., personal communication, November 18 2015).
The team verified that the fishing logbooks contain qualitative information and some quantitative information on non-target species. The massive sampling plan, the fisheries management plan and the stock evaluation document also mention the reports for the massive samplings of INAPESCA as an information source for non-target species, but these reports were not provided to the assessment team.
3.4.6. Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species
ETP species are those that are recognized by “national legislation and/or binding international agreements”. The Mexican national binding agreement for ETP species is the list in the NOM-059- SEMARNAT-2010. The international list used to evaluate this aspect of the fishery is CITES. The IUCN Red List is non-binding for MSC assessments (V1.3) (Table 11). Table 11. ETP species that can potentially interact with the red rock lobster fishery. Scientific National listing Common name CITES IUCN Red list name (Category) Eschrichtius Grey whales Special protection Appendix I Least concern robustus Zalophus Californian sea lions Special protection No listing Least concern californianus Pacific Harbor seals Phoca vitulina Special protection No listing Least concern
The species that are considered ETP and present in the Unit of Certification are marine mammals found in the Vizcaino Reserve: grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus), Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and Californian sea lions (Zalophus californianus).
The Californian sea lion and the Pacific harbor Seal are under special protection. The main sea lion breeding colonies in the Vizcaino Reserve are found on the Natividad, San Roque (another important seal colony) and Asunción islands, which are within the concessions of the Buzos y Pescadores and California de San Ignacio cooperatives. The terrestrial areas of the three islands are in the Core Zone of the Reserve. Isla Natividad is inhabited by a fishery production cooperative (Sociedad Cooperativa
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 47 of 199
de Producción Pesquera or SCPP) which has had its concessions around the island for several decades. The Reserve Management Program (INE 2000) indicates that a specific management program will be implemented for Isla Natividad.
Other certified lobster fisheries that use traps as fishing gear have reported entanglements of marine mammals in lines (Western Australia Rock Lobster Fisheries). According to the first MSC evaluation report for the California red rock lobster fishery (SCS 2004), before lobster fishing was prohibited in areas with major gray whale presence in the breeding season (Ojo de Liebre and San Ignacio lagoons in the Vizcaino Reserve), there were apparently more interactions between these species and the trap lines. In the fishing logbooks for the 2012 to 2015 seasons, no interactions with these species were recorded. The team discussed the issue with CONANP staff and technicians of the cooperatives that participated in the meeting of the visit, who confirmed that no additional interactions have been recorded. The form used for the massive sampling (INAPESCA 2006), includes codes to record interactions with marine mammals, more specifically, “7. Entanglement of whale calves in trap lines; 8. Sea lion damage to traps; 9. Whale damage to traps”. No report on the massive sampling was received to confirm whether these data are taken or if there were interactions. However, technicians from the cooperatives participate in these samplings and they did not report any entanglement of ETP species during the meetings of the visit.
Within the Vizcaino Reserve, regulations prohibit (Rule 104, paragraph XX of management plan): “The placement of nets or traps of any type in the channels of lagoons Ojo de Liebre and San Ignacio, from December 15 of one year to April 15 of the following year; nor can traps be used in sanctuary zones, nursery, lobster migration corridors; as well no trawling boats may work within the Reserve area.” (INE 2000).
There are also two declared UNESCO World Heritage Sites within the Reserve for the protection of whales (Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino) in the Ojo de Liebre and San Ignacio lagoons, sites that are considered the most important places in the world for protecting the gray whale. The cooperatives closest to these sites operate outside of these sanctuaries (Purisima and Punta Abreojos).
The Shester study (2008) indicates that anecdotal information was received from a lobster fisher who reported a leatherback turtle (Demorchelys coriacea) was entangled in a trap line but was released alive. No additional information or reports (anecdotal or formal) about interactions with this species have been obtained.
3.4.7. Habitat Impacts
There is common widespread knowledge and several studies (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003) that show that the fishery has minor direct impacts on the ecosystem, based on the characteristics of its fishing gear and methods. Traps are among the least impacting gear on both the benthic habitat and other species (Eno et al. 2001)
Shester (2008) evaluated the impact of the Baja California red rock lobster fishery in the context of the MSC certification requirements (FAM v.2.1). Through observations made on board vessels during fishing trips, Shester (2008) discovered that algae and gorgonian corals rarely get tangled in traps. In the study, dives were done before and after traps were deployed to establish transects and observe
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 48 of 199
the substrate. The possible effect of traps being dragged over the marine bottom by currents and waves was also observed. Shester (2008) concludes that “lobster traps do not appear to cause any short-term changes to benthic habitat cover when set for a 24-hour period“.
The results of the study suggested that appear to have negligible effects on the associated habitat of the fishery in assessment, that is mainly made up of low relieve sand and cobble with Eisenia kelp and gorgonian corals. The majority of hard substrate is covered by coralline red algae. The lower impact can be explained by low trap weight, single trap deployment, relatively shallow depths (in the study) and extensibility of potentially sensitive species. The traps are sunk with weights to prevent them from being dragged along the bottom, so they rarely cause more direct impact to the substrate.
In addition to the direct impact of the effect of the trap on the seafloor, Shester (2008) estimated that there is no mortality due to ghost fishing because the traps have biodegradable staples. The 2007 amendment to the NOM-006-PESC-1993 includes relevant modifications and specifies the sizes and constructing materials for traps, enforcing the utilization of biodegradable staples, which have a limited useful life, traps lost or abandoned at sea stop working once the staples break, thus preventing ghost fishing.
There are several management measures in the Vizcaino Reserve Management Plan and CNP whose purposes can also be considered to provide direct habitat protection and impact management. These measures include limits on the number of fishing boats and traps, controlled access, prohibitions on the use of other fishing gear, closed season, and regulations in the Biosphere Reserve El Vizcaino.
The new general law (LGPAS) requires that these issues about the ecological risks in a fishery be taken up in the development of fishery-specific management plans. The law requires that the management plans be developed through a collaborative effort.
In addition, the “Red Book” (2006) states, “In the concession or permit, producers are obligated to assist the protection, conservation and improvement of the resource and its habitat, and to collaborate with pertinent research, under the terms foreseen in the Fishing Law and its regulations. In addition, other generic stipulations on this matter are defined in the LGEEPA, particularly those related to the El Vizcaíno Biosphere Reserve.”
In the first full assessment (SCS 2004) it was mentioned that studies of the protected marine area habitats, including those of the lobster fishery are planned for the El Vizcaino Reserve. In addition, the Draft of the Lobster fishery management program calls for characterizing the interaction with other coastal fisheries (finfish/shark, diving for benthic resources) and lobster fishing impacts on the benthic ecosystem (this was studied by Shester (2008)). In April 2015, CONANP initiated a participatory process for the updating of the Reserve management program and defining new strategies and policies for management and conservation, including adaptation to climate change. For this evaluation, we did not receive any updated information on the status of the studies or additional information on the status of the habitats or the Vizcaino Reserve management plan process beyond what is already in the current Management Program of the protected area.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 49 of 199
3.4.8. Ecosystem Impacts
Adult California red rock lobsters emerge from shelters at night to forage within understory algae, seagrass beds (Thalassia testudinum), eelgrass (Zostera marina) and surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp). They are omnivorous and consume algae, snails, mussels, sea urchins, clams and fish. Cannibalism has been reported on injured or newly molted lobsters (Barsky 2001). Lobsters are prey for sheephead, sculpin, kelp bass, octopuses, California moray eels, horn sharks, leopard sharks, rockfishes and giant sea bass (Barsky 2001). Juvenile lobsters primarily consume isopods and amphipods as well as surfgrass, eelgrass and calcareous algae (Castaneda-Fernández et al. 2005). It is known from other lobster species, that juvenile lobsters are consumed by cephalopods and small fish, whereas several larger fish species can consume adult lobster (MacArthur et al. 2007).
Some analyses of the food web and biomass flows (Morales-Zarate and Lluch Cota 2011) suggest that the red rock lobster is a ‘key’ species (sensu general ecology, versus the MSC definition of a “key low trophic level species”) in the rocky ecosystems of the central Pacific area of the Baja California Peninsula because it interacts with many species, has a generalist diet and preys on a wide variety of invertebrates, and many predator species feed on lobsters. According to Withy-Allen (2010) “California red rock lobster populations may strongly influence marine community structure by indirectly facilitating kelp via their consumption of herbivorous sea urchins and by competitively consuming mussels on rocky shorelines in seagrass habitat”.
The team believes that direct extraction of the target resource is the only direct effect the fishery has on the ecosystem. The impact of lobster extraction on ecosystem structure and function, as well as the composition of the community and the biodiversity, is considered low, based on the known catch rate. Estimates for the status of the stock indicate a stable abundance trend since the mid-90s, with a slight decline in the last three years and is well above the level producing MSY.
An important aspect that should be considered is potential ecosystem impacts of addition of bait removals from the food web, and bait as a food subsidy for lobsters (lobsters feed on bait). The highest percentage of bait comprises sardine caught within the UoA and outside. For the Baja system, it is not known whether sardines are a key low trophic species. Therefore, the source and quantity of the bait used are important factors to consider for the lobster fishery, but these are scored under the “retained” performance indicators in the standard versus as an ecosystem consideration (otherwise they would be double-scored).
The specific area of the fishery has been continuously investigated for a number of years by personnel from the National Fisheries Institute, the CICESE (Centro de Investigación Científica y Educación Superior de Ensenada), the CICIMAR (Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas), the CIBNOR (Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste), among other national research and graduate education institutions, as well as by foreign scientists from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and an array of Southern California universities (SCS 2004). Ecosystem productivity, community composition, species ecology, upwelling ecosystems among other topics have been researched in the western coast of Baja California.
With respect to management measures, the fishing grounds are in the “sustainable natural resource use zone” that is part of the El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve buffer zone. “Any productive activity to
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 50 of 199
be carried out in this zone will have a restricted use and SEMARNAP will individually evaluate each request submitted in terms of the provisions of the General Law for Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA), its regulations regarding environmental impact and natural protected areas, Mexico’s official regulations, the Management Program and other applicable legal provisions” (INE 2000).
The National Fisheries Charter (CNP) considers fishing in protected natural areas and specifies that the regulations established in the management programs be followed. In addition, SEMARNAP requires environmental impact assessments prior to granting fishing concessions or permits, in order to avoid causing ecological imbalances in El Vizcaino Reserve. No new fisheries have been approved in the reserve.
3.5. Principle Three: Management System Background
3.5.1. Area of operation of the fishery and under which jurisdiction it falls.
The fishery under assessment targets the red rock Lobster (Panulirus interruptus) harvested by a client aggregating 9 cooperatives that are members of the FEDECOOP. The fishery operates under a concession regime along the central area of the Baja California Peninsula from the mid-section of Bahía Vizcaino, around Punta Eugenia, including Isla Cedros and south to Punta Abreojos (Figures 1 and 9). This area is the northernmost portion of the Pacific coast of the State of Baja California Sur. Fisheries in Mexico are all under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and are regulated by the overarching “Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentable” (General Law of Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture, LGPAS; DOF 2007) and its many amendments.
3.5.2. Legal structure for fisheries management
Mexico is a federal presidential constitutional republic and its structure is based in the Constitution. The Mexican Constitution, in Article 27, establishes that “The Nation has full ownership over all natural resources of the continental shelf and the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas of the islands”.
The lobster fishery is managed under the overarching “Ley general de pesca y acuacultura sustentables/General Law for sustainable fishing and aquaculture” (DOF 2007). Execution of the LGPAS is under the jurisdiction of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA) via the National Commission of Fish and Aquaculture (CONAPESCA).
The main purpose of the LGPAS, defined in its first Article, is “regulating, promoting and managing the use of fishery and aquaculture resources [….] establishing the basis for the exercise of those attributions of the federation, states and municipalities, under the overarching principles of concurrences and with the participation of fishers [….] with the purpose of promoting the integral and sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture.”
For delivering sustainable fisheries, the objectives of the LGPAS are listed in its Article 2 and include:
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 51 of 199
I. “To establish and define the principles to regulate, promote and applied an integral management under a sustainable manner.”
III. “To establish the basis for the ordination, conservation, protection, repopulation and sustainable utilization of fisheries and aquaculture resources, as well as the protection and rehabilitation of those ecosystems in which these resources are.”
Other objectives are related to the quality of life of fishers, the fisheries planning process, access rights, application of the law by all governmental levels, fishers’ participation, support of scientific research, permits system, quality and certification of fisheries and aquaculture products, enforcement, infringement and sanctions, and how to assure that fishing and aquaculture are prioritized for food production.
In 1992, the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization (Ley Federal de Metrología y Normalización; DOF 1992) established the integration of Official Mexican Norms (Norms/NOMs). The Norms, which are obligatory (legally binding), and are technical regulations that control a diverse range of production processes including sectors from manufacturing to fisheries. In Article 40 the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization establishes that a Norm “regulates procedures to assure the preservation of natural resources […] and if necessary to seek preferential right to access, utilization and benefit of fisheries resources to indigenous communities and people […] in those places that they occupy and inhabit.”
Federal Regulatory Institutions that have interest or responsibility in the fishery include:
SAGARPA
Since 2001, SAGARPA, the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadaría, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación, SAGARPA) has been in charge of administering fisheries and aquaculture legislation. Oversight of CONAPESCA falls under the jurisdiction of SAGARPA.
CONAPESCA
The Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca (CONAPESCA) is an administrative entity of SAGARPA and is responsible for management, coordination and policy development related to the sustainable use and exploitation of fisheries and aquatic resources. CONAPESCA’s responsibilities include management of the fisheries in the country, guiding the development of fishery specific regulations and fisheries management systems and standards such as the NOMs, issuing quota and permitting. The technical advisor for CONAPESCA is INAPESCA. Fishing violations are penalized under the terms of the Fisheries Act and its Regulations and are enforced through coordination between CONAPESCA and the Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (PROFEPA).
INAPESCA
The National Fisheries Institute (INAPESCA) is responsible for all technical aspects of fishing activities in Mexico. The main responsibilities of the INAPESCA include the development of management
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 52 of 199
plans, performing surveys of abundance and estimating fisheries potential yields along with proposing quotas or any other management tool. In practice, surveys and stock assessments are completed by Regional Fishery Centres known as “CRIPs” (Centro Regional de Investigación Pesquera), which are subdivisions of INAPESCA. INAPESCA serves as a technical advisory role to CONAPESCA.
SEMARNAT
SEMARNAT is the federal agency responsible for promoting the protection, restoration and conservation of ecosystems and natural resources and environmental goods and services in Mexico. In particular, SEMARNAT oversees the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and biodiversity, pollution control and prevention, management of water resources, and preventing and mitigating climate change impacts. SEMARNAT comprises a series of undersecretaries, commissions. And institutes. But does not regulate fishing activities SEMARNAT is however responsible for protection of marine resources via establishing protected natural areas such as those in the Gulf of Mexico and NOMs that protect specific species via CONANP. SEMARNAT consults with SAGARPA to determine fisheries measures such as season openings and closures, in order to ensure that resource use is performed sustainably. SEMARNAT also houses PROFEPA, which is issues sanction to increase compliance with environmental regulations.
PROFEPA
A decentralized agency of SEMARNAT, the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA - Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente), handles environmental disputes related to all types of environmental protected species, such as dolphins. PROFEPA also performs inspections and provides inspection training to SAGARPA staff to help catch and discourage IUU fishing practices that present an environmental threat.
CONANP
CONANP is the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas), and is another decentralized agency under SEMARNAT in charge of the administration of Natural Protected Areas.
CNPA
National Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Consejo Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura, CNPA) is an inter-sectorial forum mandated by the LGPAS, for the support, coordination, consultation, concentration, and advice for the fisheries management decisions under. The CNAP is conformed by representatives of the Federal regulatory organizations, social organizations, and fisheries and aquaculture producers groups. The CNPA defines the management objectives of the Fisheries Management Plans (DOF 2007a).
CEPA
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 53 of 199
State Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Consejo Estatal de Pesca y Acuicultura, CEPA) is council similar as the CNPA but at state level, mandated by the LGPAS. The CEPA also helps to define the management objectives for the Fisheries Management Plan (DOF 2007a).
CCNNA
Advisory Committee for the Normalization of Agricultural Food Production (Consejo Consultivo para la Normalización Agroalimentaria) is an advisor committee for SAGARPA, which objective is to propose, compile, review, approve, modified, cancel, publish and broadcast Mexican official norms related with the food production based on agriculture, livestock, aquaculture and fisheries (DOF 2012d). In the case of regulations for aquaculture and fisheries, the Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing is in charge of this sector. The Committee and sub-committees members belong to the governmental, industrial, productive, academic, service and consumer sectors. This composition ensures the participation of all stakeholders of the fisheries.
3.5.3. Laws germane to fishery management
The LGPAS is harmonized to work in accordance with the General Law for the Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente), which considers habitat effects that may occur from fishing operations and industrial fishing processes. This is particularly relevant because most of the fishery takes place within coastal areas of the “Reserva de la Biosfera del Vizcaino” (Vizcaino biosphere reserve). The “Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales” (SEMARNAT, the Secretariat for Environment and Natural Resources) is the highest executive branch for general law, while the “Comisión Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas” (CONANP, National Commission for Natural Protected Areas) relates specifically to natural reserves.
The LGPAS is also in accordance with the General Law of Wildlife and its Regulations (Ley General de Vida Silvestre) which dictates measures for protected species. Fishing product processes and fishing operations at sea are regulated by the General Law for the Prevention and Integral Management of Waste (Ley General para la Prevención y Gestión Intergral de los Residuos) and the Law of Dumping in the Mexican Marine Areas (Ley de Vertimientos en las Zonas Marinas Mexicanas). Fish processing plants are also regulated in their use of water by the Law of National Waters and its Regulations (Ley de Aguas Nacionales) and the Federal Law of Environmental Liability (Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental). More recently, the fishing industry has had to follow some regulations of the General Law of Climate Change (Ley General de Cambio Climático).
As with all marine activities, the fishery is also regulated by the “Ley de Navegación” (The merchant marine law) for the licensing of boats.
The “Ley Federal Sobre Metrología y Normalización” (LFMN, Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization) establishes the procedures for the integration of the “Normas Oficiales Mexicanas” (NOMs, Official Mexican Norms).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 54 of 199
Procedurally, the fisheries management sector is regulated by the Federal Law on Administrative Procedures (Ley Federal de Procedimientos Administrativos, LFPA), that specifies protocols for the development of new administrative procedures and regulations.
The Federal Penal Code in Mexico is the highest level of compliance law and considers criminal activities against protected species. Abalone and lobster are the only species of commercial value that included in the Federal Penal Code. Article 420, Fraction II Bis says: “A penalty of one to nine years of imprisonment and a fine of three hundred to three thousand days of minimum wage will be imposed on anyone who unlawfully and fraudulently capture, transform, collect, transport, destroy or trade abalone or lobster, including fishing without the corresponding authorization. These sanctions apply regardless of whether the fisheries are closed or open for fishing operations”
3.5.4. Fishery specific management system
Federal legal framework
In 1993, the NOM-006PESC-1993 was published to provide a standard containing a suite of specific regulations for the harvest of all species of lobster within the jurisdiction of the Federation in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean and the Pacific, including the Gulf of California (DOF 1993). The Norm established operational and biological regulations including: . The Federal Fisheries Authority will determine the fishing seasons and closures which shall be made public by publication in the Official Gazette (DOF). . Holders of concessions and permits must collaborate with the authority in any program established to improve the performance of the fishery and to verify compliance with the Norm. . The harvest of lobster can be conducted using traps that allow the live catch of animals to determine if they are of legal size and return undersized lobsters and berried females. Use of hooks and spears is not permitted. . Undersized lobsters and berried females must be returned to the sea. . Specific minimum size limits for all species. Lobsters in the Pacific coast and Gulf of California from Colima and north, must be at least 82.5 mm of cephalothoracic length. . Lobsters must be landed whole.
In 2007 the Norm was modified to include detailed specifications for the construction of traps to be used along the coast of the Baja California Peninsula. The modifications include the requirement of an escape window, the requirement to check traps at least every 72 hrs, the need to remove all traps from the water at the end of the fishing season and the requirement to fill a logbook to describe details of fishing operations. An additional modification was added to the Norm in 2009 to include a precision about the meaning of measures of cephalothorax and abdomen.
The span of the fishing season has been modified to adjust to perceived changes in the reproductive behaviour of the different stocks. Such changes are documented by the INAPESCA and a request is
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 55 of 199
made to CONAPESCA to have the change finally published in the Official Gazette (DOF 2005; DOF 2014; DOF 2015).
Another important legal document for the management of lobster fishery is the National Fisheries Chart (Carta Nacional Pesquera, CNP). The CNP is a legally binding instrument for the fisheries authorities’ decision-making process. This Chart includes the diagnostics and the integral assessment of a fishery, fisheries and conservation indicators, and recommendations by INAPESCA, for the management of the fisheries that are included in the CNP. Updates of the CNP are prepared by INAPESCA every two or three years with the latest version published in 2012 (DOF 2012a). Before an update is published in the Official Gazette (Diario Oficial, DOF), the CNP undergoes a public review process by the publication of the updated draft of the Chart in the DOF. This allows the general public, non-governmental organizations and the academic sector, among others, to provide opinions and input about the different subjects included in the CNP.
Fishery Management Plans (Planes de Manejo Pesquero) are elaborated by INAPESCA following the stipulation of the LGPAS. For the lobster fishery in Baja California, a Management Plan has been drafted for a number of years, the last revision has conducted in 2014 but has not been made public yet. This plan establishes that the management goal for the fishery in the central area of the peninsula, is to continue harvesting at a sustainable level. In the diagnostics section, the resource is said to be above the “optimal level” when Bo/2 and the catch is near MSY. Therefore, the goal for the central area in terms of harvesting at a “sustainable level”, is interpreted as maintaining the current status of the stock above the level producing MSY. In practical terms, this represents a legally binding target reference point even if not explicitly stated. The sustainability goal is also linked to the need to be achieved in balance with the socio-economic needs of the population and the ecosystem requirements. Finally, the plan also aims to conduct the fishery under an efficient administrative system that respects the national and international legal framework.
Community level management and decision making process
There are two main regulatory mechanisms for the specific management of the lobster fishery in Baja California: 1) limited access rights, given through concessions or permits, which define limitations of fishing areas and limit the number of boats and traps being proposed by the fishing coops in their mandatory annual programs; 2) regulatory measures protecting reproduction and recruitment, such as minimum size limits, area and temporal closures, protection to ovigerous females and escape windows in traps. Measures are implemented and overseen by both the authorities and the cooperatives by means of a co-management approach that facilitates the coordination in the decision making process. The co-management system is supported with the existence of organizations for the inclusive participation of fishers and other stakeholders. The “Comité Técnico Consultivo de la Pesquería de Langosta del Pacífico” (Technical Consulting Committee for the Pacific Lobster Fishery), created in 1988, organizes the “Taller Anual de Langosta” (Annual lobster workshop). There is also a “Subcomité Estatal de Langosta de Baja California Sur” (Baja California Sur state lobster subcommittee), operating since 2003, within the framework of the “Consejo Estatal de Pesca y Acuacultura” (State council for fisheries and aquaculture).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 56 of 199
At present, 26 Cooperatives are authorized to harvest lobster through renewable concessions. Figure 8 shows the polygon delimitation of the concession for each of the 9 cooperatives that are part of the client group. Each concession includes a clear description of the exclusive fishing zone issued to each cooperative. Once the concession is granted, the operative details of the concession are controlled by cooperatives to ensure limitations on fishing effort as well as prevention of illegal fishing by poachers, which requires an internal monitoring, control and surveillance system. Fishing effort is regulated inside the cooperatives to meet the goals of an Annual Harvesting Program for the following year. This Program is submitted annually every October to CONAPESCA as a requisite to keep the concession of the fishing area. Cooperatives are responsible for monitoring landings and logbooks for fishing effort. All fishermen have to be members of the Cooperative and have to show a positive level of production in order to continue their participation. The harvesting level for the following season is planned based on the analysis of the last 5 fishing seasons, and taking into account the performance of captains and crew, holding fishers with high productivity, encouraging mid-level productivity members to improve and substituting those with poor performance. The final harvest level is based on the recommendations from INAPESCA which takes into account the stock size, biological and economic indicators. These are discussed in assessment workshops or Lobster Fishery Subcommittee meetings and at CONAPESCA if any change in regulations is proposed. The necessary adjustments or changes in the harvest strategy to be included in the Annual Harvesting Plan are discussed and agreed upon during a Cooperative Members meeting, where the fishers, vessels and number of traps for the following season are established.
Monitoring, control and surveillance
According to Mexican regulations, CONAPESCA and PROFEPA are in charge of compliance and surveillance. However, given the practical challenges facing the Federal Government to monitoring all coastal artisanal fisheries and due to the characteristics of the concession regime and high value of the lobster fishery, the cooperatives have developed a monitoring, control and surveillance system inside their fishing area to avoid non-compliance and eliminate illegal fishing. This system represents a high cost of around $ 2.5 million dollars per year to the 10 cooperatives together, for operation and an investment cost of around $ 1.5 million dollars for communication equipment, vehicles, boats, etc. The system is legally recognized as a Community Surveillance Committee and has a dedicated Project that establishes all operational details (Ramade, unpublished; Estrategias de captura implementadas para la pesqueria de langosta roja en la zona central de la peninsula de Baja California). Its implementation has had positive results minimizing illegal fishing along the central region. The Surveillance Committee also participates in the enforcement of the legal minimal size by double checking catch with the Quality Control group of the Cooperatives during the landing process. When the infractor is a member of the cooperative, sanctions range from warnings to economic sanctions, to members being expelled from the cooperative. When illegal fishing from non-cooperative members is detected, a CONAPESCA, PROFEPA or the Navy are summoned to conduct inspections at sea or port. Evidence of an official report of infractions (by non-coop members) exists for the area under assessment (see Appendix 6.2 for an example).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 57 of 199
Dispute resolution
At the national level, there is a full scale judicial system. Sanctions by authorities to particulars for failures to comply with the law and its subsidiaries have to meet the premises in the Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo (Federal Law of Administrative Procedure).
Under Article 149 of the LGPAS, a fishery resource user can contest a final resolution that was reached according to administrative procedures defined in the application of the Law. Details about how to proceed in the development of a dispute under this Article of the LGPAS are regulated and defined in the Federal Law for Administrative Procedures.
At the local level, conflicts and disagreements can be addressed at Lobster Fishery Subcommittee or Cooperative Member meetings.
Research plan
There is currently no active document containing a comprehensive description of a research plan. An outline of what would be a Research Program is found in the Draft of the Management Plan but this is still unpublished. Research by INAPESCA is undertaken as required, to achieve the sustainability objective as determined by the law. Research activities are usually organized in Annual Operative Plans and are determined by the current needs of the fishery (e.g. INAPESCA 2010). There is an old Monitoring Plan (INAPESCA 2006) that describes sampling protocols to investigate lobster reproductive biology and to conduct massive fisheries sampling. The objectives of this plan were to obtain reproductive information to support the season closure and the minimum size rule and to obtain biometric information to determine equivalences of minimum size to cephalothorax length and tail weight.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 58 of 199
4. Evaluation Procedure
4.1. Harmonised Fishery Assessment
For this assessment, harmonization is not required for P1 or P2. Harmonization is only required for the “Governance and Policy” component under Principle 3.
Principle 1: the stock under assessment does not overlap with another fishery. There is another fishery in Mexico for lobster, but on the Caribbean coast which is conducted on a different stock.
Principle 2: there are no other UoC within the red rock lobster fishery UoA. As this fishery is certified against CR v1.3, it is not yet subject to the MSC cumulative P2 impacts approach, which, under V2.0 would be applicable to sardines, which are used as bait in this fishery. Cumulative impact requirements also come into effect in V2.0 are required where applicable (e.g., where there are overlapping, main primary species). Guidance is provided on this topic under harmonisation in Annex GPB and Annex GSA.
Principle 3: Governance and Policy component: There are several other MSC certified fisheries in Mexico. All fisheries in Mexico are subject to Federal regulatory mandates under the overarching LGPAS. This Law defines the general long term goal of sustainability and the organizational and procedural structure to achieve the general goal. Elements in Principle 3 that pertain to the general goals, governance and management that are common to all fisheries in Mexico should therefore have consistent background, scores and rationales.
Fisheries Specific Management System: The red rock lobster fishery shares elements of the Fisheries Specific Management System Component (3.2.1-3.2.4) with the Sian Ka’an and Banco Chinchorro Biosphere Reserves spiny lobster that was certified in 2012 using the RBF for certain performance indicators. Mexican spiny lobster fisheries are regulated by NOM-PESC-006-1993, which encompasses the management regulations for the species in the Mexican Caribbean, Gulf of México, Baja California Peninsula and the Gulf of California. However, both fisheries also have unique specific management structures: in the Sian Ka’an fishery these are related to the management plan of the adjacent Sian Ka´an Biosphere Reserve (SKBR), while in the red rock lobster fishery in Baja California is related to the management of the Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve. In both situations, these fisheries are subject to regulations specific to these reserves. Furthermore both the the Sian Ka’an spiny lobster and the Baja California red rock lobster fishery are managed by their respective cooperative management systems. Despite the fact that these two UoA operate under the same national management system, the fisheries specific management varies as a result of the additional management components, voiding the need for harmonization.
Table 12. Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 59 of 199
Principles for Conformity Assessment Fishery Status Harmonization Body 1. Gulf of California Sardine Certified Principle 3 SCS Global Services Fishery 2. Southern Gulf of California In evaluation Principle 3 SCS Global Services Thread Herring 3. Northeastern Tropical Pacific YFT & SKJ Purse Seine Tuna In evaluation Principle 3 SCS Global Services Fishery. 4. Sian Ka’an and Banco Chinchorro Spiny Lobster Certified Principle 3 MRAG Fishery.
Table 13. Alignment of Scores for Harmonization Southern Sian Ka’an Gulf of Gulf of Mexican and Banco PI California California Pacific Chinchorro Comments Sardine Thread Tuna Spiny Herring Lobster
Overall, scores for Monterrey sardine will differ from the 3.1.1 95 85 80 80 rest, maybe because different methodology and CR version. 3.1.2 85 90 85 85 3.1.3 100 100 100 100 3.1.4 85 80 80 80
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 60 of 199
4.2. Previous assessments
This fishery has previously undergone full MSC assessment and one re-assessment. The full assessment was completed in April 2004 by Dr. Bruce Phillips, Dr. Daniel Lluch Belda and Dr. Arturo Muhlia using the Fisheries Certification Methodology version 3. The re-assessment was completed in June 2011 by Dr. Oscar Sosa-Nishizaki, Dr. Daniel Lluch Belda and Dr. Sabine Daume, using MSC FAM V2.1
Copies of this and all assessment downloads are available here: https://www.msc.org/track-a- fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/mexico-baja-california-red-rock-lobster
In the fourth surveillance (2015) of the latest certificate cycle, SCS found that the red rock lobster fishery in Baja California Mexico continued to be in general compliance with the MSC standard. SCS recommended the continued use of the MSC certificate. Original conditions for the fishery included: 1.2.4, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3 and 2.5.3 (Table 14). Condition 1.2.4 was behind target in Year 1, in Year 2 conditions 2.2.3 and 2.5.3 were closed while condition 1.2.4 was brought back on target. At the third annual surveillance, conditions 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 were closed, while condition 1.2.4 was left as the only remaining open condition and was scored as again behind target.
In Year 2 (2013) the client was given notice that significant ongoing progress on performance indicator 1.2.4 was expected: “while the major non-conformance against the performance indicators (1.2.4) was closed out and progress against meeting the condition judged to be back on target, further progress will need to be demonstrated throughout the next year and evidence need to be provided at the next surveillance audit”. In particular, the team noted that stock assessment work exploring alternative biologically relevant models was needed, along with use of tagging data to estimate sublegal post-release mortality, and external peer review of the stock assessment models. One component of condition 1.2.4 – to include information from the portion of the fishery taking place at Guadalupe Island demonstrated progress via collection of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data, was expected to continue over the 2015-16 fishing season.
The team determined that if by the 4th surveillance (2015) no evidence of progress against the original condition 1.2.4 was presented, the certificate would move into suspension and potential withdrawal, as the management agency has been given sufficient time to address these concerns. During the 4th surveillance audit, the fishery submitted a stock assessment report that was considered adequate to meet requirements to update stock status. The team also received reports from external peer review of the stock assessment. Condition 1.2.4 was closed for this certificate cycle.
Four conditions were raised in the last certificate cycle for Principle 2; two of these conditions (2.2.3; 2.5.3) were closed during the second surveillance audit in 2013 and the other two (2.2.1; 2.2.2) were closed during the third surveillance audit in 2014. During the 4th surveillance audit, it was confirmed that progress for all conditions for Principle 2 is adequate and that they remain on target. In the re- assessment in 2012, the fishery was scored using MSC FAM V2.1 certification requirements, under this version, bait was scored under the Performance Indicator (PI) for bycatch species (2.2.X). In the CR V1.3 bait is scored under PI for retained species (2.1.X). For 4th surveillance, the conditions for
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 61 of 199
bait and bycatch were scored under the PIs that correspond to CR V1.3. Therefore, progress and status after surveillance of conditions 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 were reported under PI 2.1.1 and PI 2.1.2.
For condition 2.2.1 information was provided on the amount and origin of the bait, mainly locally caught bait, through the use of the monthly bait records and logbooks. In addition, information was provided on the size frequency distribution of locally caught sardines that meet the minimum sizes set in the regulations. Locally caught bait species are considered to be within biologically based limits. Conditions 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 were closed based on the fact that sardines used as bait total 3,471 mt3 during the 2014-2015 season, representing a small percentage of the total estimated catch (60,000 mt) for the whole sardine fishery in the west coast of Baja California (Hill et al. 2011; Enciso and Cotero 2014). Despite a spike in the total catch for sardines in 2011 and a sustained decline until 2014, the catch has remained stable since 2000.
For condition 2.2.2, reports were provided with details of the species or groups of species used as bait by month during the fishing season. The logbooks were used to report on the species or groups of species of bycatch, including bait. Non-target catch in traps appears to be low relative to the likely overall population abundance of the species captured, but more information resolution would be helpful. In response to condition 2.2.3 a bycatch monitoring system was established with each fishing team using a logbook and there is a sampling agreement for at least one boat per fishing ground per producer, but more is being sampled in practice (56% of traps in the 14/15 season). For condition 2.5.3 reports have been provided on bycatch during fishing seasons, based on data from the logbook monitoring system.
In the third surveillance audit, three recommendations were made for the conditions in Principle 2. These recommendations requested information on the size distribution of sardines caught locally, information on the contribution of the lobster fishery to the total catch of whitefish and sea bass in the areas where they are extracted and to record logbook information at the species level as well as whether organisms were retained, discarded or released alive. Evidence was provided that the clients implemented one of the recommendations (Recommendation 1: size distribution of sardines captured locally for bait). No information was provided on the contribution of lobster fishing to the capture of sea bass and whitefish (Recommendation 2) nor were logbooks provided with data on the destination of the bycatch species (Recommendation 3), although data was recorded for whitefish and shark species in some of the fishing fields. The client was given notice that recommendations for PI 2.1.1 and 2.2.3 that were not met could become potential conditions in the re-assessment, unless supporting evidence was provided.
3 Tonnes in this report follow the metric system convention that tonnes=metric ton=1000 kg. Tonnes is a non- SI unit, accepted for use within SI. In this report, tonnes is abbreviated to “mt”.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 62 of 199
Table 14. Summary of Previous Assessment Conditions
Condition Performance Status PI original score PI revised score number indicator (PI)
1 1.2.4 Closed 4th surveillance 75 80
2 2.2.1 Closed 3rd surveillance 70 80
3 2.2.2 Closed 3rd surveillance 70 80
4 2.2.3 Closed 2nd surveillance 70 80
5 2.5.3 Closed 2nd surveillance 70 80
4.3. Assessment Methodologies
This assessment was conducted by SCS Global Services, an accredited MSC conformity assessment body. The fishery was assessed using the MSC Certification Requirements Version 1.3, January 14 2013 and the reporting template used in this report is also V1.3. The default assessment tree was used without adjustments. The fishery is subject to the updated process requirements of V2.0 FCR (April 1, 2015) and V2.1 GCR (Sept 1, 2015) at the time of this re-assessment. The fishery will remain on Part C of V1.3 of the Certification Requirements for all performance requirements (PISGs) for the five year duration of the certificate cycle, should the fishery be found capable of scoring at a level that confers certification.
4.4. Evaluation Processes and Techniques
4.4.1. Site Visits
The assessment team selected visit sites and interviewees based on information needed to assess management operations of the unit of assessment. The client group and other relevant stakeholders helped identify and contact fisheries management, research, compliance, and habitat protection personnel and agency representatives. Before the site visit and meetings were conducted, an audit plan was provided to the client and relevant stakeholders. The on-site meetings took place November 17 and 18th, 2015 in the main offices of FEDECOOP in Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. The assessment team also met with representatives from several institutions, including INAPESCA, CONAPESCA and CONANP (Table 15). The onsite meetings was organized into four main time blocks where the main topics for the assessment were addressed (Table 16).
1. An Audit Plan was provided to the client, fisheries management and scientists before the meeting. The opening meeting with the client included an exchange of information relevant to the surveillance audit.
2. Participants at the onsite meeting, included Mr. Mario Ramade representing the FEDECOOP, and are listed in Table 15. Discussions partially focused on the ongoing activities associated with the Conditions placed on the fishery and also addressed larger issues relevant to this third full assessment/2nd re-assessment.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 63 of 199
Table 15. Fourth Annual Surveillance Audit Attendees and Organizations
Name Role Affiliation Aldo Murillo Villavicencio Technical Representative Coop. Leyes de Reforma
Armando Murillo President Administrative Council Coop. La Purísima
Armando Vega Velázquez Director, C.R.I.P. INAPESCA Carlos Alvarez Assessment Team Leader SCS Carmina Salinas Iván Technical Representative Coop. Emancipación Celerino Montes Subdirector CONANP Claudia Miranda Technical Representative Coop. San Ignacio Daniel Romero Arce Technical Representative Coop. Pescadores Nacionales de Abulón Donaxi Borjes Flores Representative of RBIG RBIG-CONANP Edgar Camacho Researcher INAPESCA CRIP-La Paz Eduardo Enríquez González Technical Representative Coop. Punta Abreojos Coop. Isla Guadalupe Abuloneros y Elviz Estrada Adminstrative Representative Langosteros Secretary of the Administrative Evaristo Hernández Coop. La Purísima Council President of Surveillance Francisco Camacho FEDECOOP Committee Gabriel Jiménez Researcher INAPESCA CRIP-La Paz Gabriel Arce V. Treasurer Coop. La Purísima Gabriela Anhalzer Coordinator SCS Treasurer, former President of Gerónimo Aguilar FEDECOOP the Surveillance Committee Gustavo Villavicencio Perlata Technical Representative Coop. Leyes de Reforma Coop. Isla Guadalupe Abuloneros y Javier A. González Administrative Secretary Langosteros José Ramón Franco Santiago Technical Representative Coop. San Ignacio Juan Carlos Bonilla Technical Representative Coop. Emancipación Julián Castro García Jefe de Centro INAPESCA Mario Ramade Villanueva Client Representative/President FEDECOOP Director, Isla Guadalupe Marisol Torres Aguilar CONANP Protected Area Oscar Humberto Baylon Subdelegado CONAPESCA Grecco Ramón García Arce Technical Representative Coop. Bahía Tortugas Roldán Maldonado Fisheries Officer CONAPESCA Sandra Andraka Assessment Team Member SCS
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 64 of 199
Sian Morgan Technical Support and Witness SCS Vicente Romero Valenzuela Technical Representative Coop. San Ignacio
3. Necessary documents were presented by the client to SCS prior to, and during, the meeting. Follow up emails were sent to request additional information after the meeting, including the peer reviewed stock assessment. This was sent to the assessment team on January 8th, and was required to close condition 1.2.3 for this surveillance/certificate cycle.
Table 16. Audit Plan: Key Meetings and Locations Meeting Date Location Topic number General fisheries updates, 1 Nov. 17, 2015 am Ensenada, Mexico conditions Stock assessment and draft of 2 Nov. 17, 2015 pm Ensenada, Mexico management plan
3 Nov. 18, 2015 am Ensenada, Mexico Surveillance and monitoring Logbooks and data on P2 4 Nov. 18, 2015 pm Ensenada, Mexico species
4.4.2. Stakeholder Consultations and Due Diligence Stakeholder consultation occurred at the onsite meeting. No ENGO’s decided to attend the onsite meeting, despite outreach by the Team Leader for the 4th annual surveillance audit, giving early notice to stakeholders who have participated in other Mexican MSC processes. Three members of CONANP attended the meeting, along two government agency staff from INAPESCA and a representative from CONAPESCA. A large numbers of technicians who are critical stakeholders from FEDECOOP also attended. No stakeholders requested a private meeting with the team, and most participants attended all sessions in both days of onsite meetings.
Notice of the 4th annual surveillance audit and re-assessment was circulated to a list with over 30 individuals and approximately 15 organizations, panning the government, private sector and non- profit sectors. No stakeholder written comments were received.
4.4.3. Documentation
One of the most significant, and difficult, aspects of the MSC certification process is ensuring that the assessment team gets a complete and thorough grounding in all aspects of the fishery under evaluation. In even the smallest fishery, this is no easy task as the assessment team typically needs information that is fully supported by documentation in all areas of the fishery from the status of stocks, to ecosystem impacts, through management processes and procedures.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 65 of 199
Under the MSC program, it is the responsibility of the organizations, client or individuals interested in being assessed to provide the information required demonstrating that the fishery or fisheries comply with the MSC standard. It is also the responsibility of the applicants to ensure that the assessment team has access to any and all scientists, managers, and fishers that the assessment team identifies as necessary to interview in its effort to properly understand the functions associated with the management of the fishery. Last, it is the responsibility of the assessment team to make contact with stakeholders that are known to be interested, or actively engaged in issues associated with fisheries in the same geographic location.
Information for the assessed was gathered from the client prior to the onsite visit (and after), and via phone conversations, email and use of Dropbox.
INAPESCA and members of FEDECOOP were key in providing many of the scientific analyses, figures (INAPESCA) as well as operational and regulatory information (FEDECOOP).
4.4.4. Scoring Process
Scoring was initiated during the two-day site visit and completed iteratively through phone calls, emails and skype teleconferences between November 2015 and February 2016. Following the onsite visit, the team compiled a list of requested documents that were conveyed by the client coordinator, to the relevant parties. These materials were returned via the client coordinator to the team leader and then disseminated to the team by the leader. The client was given two such opportunities for main rounds of document submission following the onsite visit. The updated stock assessment was submitted by INAPESCA on December 2015. The client submitted information relevant to non-target species, the permitting system for concessions and enforcement mechanism in January 2016.
Subsequent communications with the client in the process of evaluation of the Client Action Plan resulted in some changes in the rationales and scoring, based on more detailed information provided by the client at this stage. The final scores were discussed and agreed by all team members.
Decision rules for final outcome
The decision rule for MSC certification is as follows: . No PIs score below 60 (cannot receive certification) . The aggregate score for each Principle, rounded to the nearest whole number, is 80 or above . The aggregate score for each Principle is calculated by taking the average score for each section followed by the average of all the section scores (see Table 6.1).
Scoring was completed by consensus through team meetings and exchanging rationales by email and draft score and report sharing.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 66 of 199
Table 4.3 Scoring elements Component Scoring elements Main/not main Data-deficient or not Retained non-target Pacific sardine (Sardinops Main Non data-deficient species sagax) Bycatch Horn shark (Heterodontus Main Non data-deficient francisci) Bycatch Swell sharks (Cephaloscyllium Main Non data-deficient ventriosum) ETP species Gray whale (Eschrichtius NA Non data-deficient robustus) ETP species Californian sea lions (Zalophus NA Non data-deficient californianus) ETP species Pacific harbor seals (Phoca NA Non data-deficient vitulina)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 67 of 199
5. Traceability
5.1. Eligibility Date
The target eligibility date is October 2, 2016. This date is within 6 months of the expected date of release of the Public Comment Draft Report. The traceability and segregation systems that are required to ensure the separation of any certified product from non-certified product are believed to be already in place for the client’s operation
5.2. Traceability within the Fishery The UoC/UoA covers the nine Cooperatives in the Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas “Baja California” that use wire traps to capture red rock lobster (Panulirus interruptus) within their nine individual concession areas. Lobsters are landed by fishermen from each cooperative at their own landing points. Fishers must be active members of the cooperatives and be in good standing (e.g. without pending infractions) or else landing is not allowed, strict control of cooperative members prevents any risk of lobster from outside the UoC from mingling with certified lobster at landing Lobsters are logged in the cooperative books, and the catch recorded so that each fisher can get paid. Boats registered under one of the nine cooperatives that are part of the UoA will land their catch exclusively at points under the control of that cooperative only, however, a single cooperative may have more than one point of landing Catch from landing points belonging to a cooperative is transferred to a single processing plant that belongs to the cooperative, with each cooperative having their own processing plant. Boats from one cooperative will not deliver their catch at landing points or processing plants from other cooperatives.When the product is received at the processing plant an official landing document (avisos de arribo) is completed, the aviso de arribo may contain mixed catch from more than one landing points from that cooperative. The avisos de arribo collects information on the species, volume and date of landing for the cooperative. This information is submitted to the offices of CONAPESCA. The books of the processing plant do have a record of the origin of the lobster arriving from each landing point. At this point, lobsters are usually transferred to the Port of EnsenadaLobster fishing boats are small enough for travel beyond the limit of the certified fishery to be highly unlikely. This system makes it very unlikely as well for the fishers to make transhipments of product. There is no at-sea processing.
The other two lobster species caught by fishers are easily distinguishable and thus there is a low risk of intermingling.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 68 of 199
5.3. Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody
Product from originating from the nine cooperatives in the Federación Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas “Baja California” will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody. The assessment team recommends that initial chain of custody be established at the point of landing. MSC chain of custody assessments were not undertaken as part of the evaluation of the fishery, and therefore, will need to be undertaken on a separate and individual basis for those entities that may wish to identify and/or label products derived from the fishery. A chain-of-custody certificate may be obtained after a successful evaluation from an accredited Certification Assessment Body such as SCS. Entities wishing to use the MSC blue eco-label are encouraged to contact the PAST Alliance for arrangements to join the certificate. Entities wishing to inquire on MSC chain-of-custody certification are encouraged to contact SCS at [email protected].
The current unit of certification includes the vessels registered under the 9 cooperatives in FEDECOOP: . Pescadores Nacionales de Abulon . Buzos y Pescadores . La Purisima . Bahia Tortugas . Emancipacion . California de San Ignacio . Leyes de Reforma . Progreso . Punta Abreojos
5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody
There are no IPI stock(s) involved in this certification
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 69 of 199
6. Evaluation Results
2.1. Principle Level Scores
Table 6.1: Final Principle Scores Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 81.1 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 83.0 Principle 3 – Management System 87.0
2.2. Summary of Scores Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Unit of Assessment
One Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 90
1.1.2 Reference points 75
1.1.3 Stock rebuilding -
Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 80
1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 65
1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 85
Two Retained species 2.1.1 Outcome 80
2.1.2 Management 80
2.1.3 Information 75
Bycatch species 2.2.1 Outcome 80
2.2.2 Management 80
2.2.3 Information 75
ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 95
2.3.2 Management 90
2.3.3 Information 95
Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 80
2.4.2 Management 95
2.4.3 Information 80
Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 80
2.5.2 Management 80
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 70 of 199
2.5.3 Information 80
Three Governance & policy 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 90
3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibility 90
3.1.3 Long term objectives 100
3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 80
Fishery specific mgt. 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 80
3.2.2 Decision making processes 100
3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 100
3.2.4 Research plan 60
3.2.5 Mgt. performance evaluation 80
2.3. Summary of Conditions Table 6.3: Summary of Conditions Condition Condition Performance Related to number Indicator previously raised condition? (Y/N/N/A) Define explicit reference points that are appropriate N for the stock and can be estimated. The Limit Reference Point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive 1-1 1.1.2(b) capacity. The Target Reference Point works to maintain the stock at a level consistent with Bmsy or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. The harvest control rule must be pre-agreed, well N defined and in place; it must be consistent with the harvest strategy to ensure that the exploitation rate 1-2 1.2.2(a) is reduced as the limit reference point is approached. The selection of the control rule must take into account the main uncertainties The Guidance to the CR V1.3 indicates in GCB2.6, that N uncertainty can be addressed by testing either through simulation, comparison with analogous fisheries or empirical testing. No evidence was 1-3 provided to indicate that such type of testing or other 1.2.2(b) approach to evaluate the potential impacts of the main uncertainties on the decisions made after application of the control rule. The SG80 cannot be met in this scoring issue. By second surveillance, provide information at the Y 2-1 species level on the volume and sources of bait and 2.1.3 (b) other retained species in this fishery.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 71 of 199
By third surveillance, provide accuracy information at Y the species level on the volume of bycatch species in 2-2 2.2.3 (b) this fishery, information and evidence of end use of sharks and other bycatch species. A research plan must be developed as a written N document that includes a plan for the fishery under assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring research. The plan must provide 3-1 3.2.4 (a) the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Results of research conducted to inform management N 3-2 actions must be disseminated to all parties in a timely 3.2.4 (b) fashion.
6.3.1. Recommendations Principle 1:
Stock Assessment: The age specific fishing mortality rate, as shown in Figure 7, shows variations across different age groups, with lobsters age 11+ subject to a more intense fishing rate. Assuming that across any unit of effort the selectivity and catchability of the traps is constant, the different age classes of lobsters above the minimum legal size are subject to the same fishing pressure. Consequently, rather than an instantaneous fishing mortality rate, the variations across age classes may be reflecting the harvest rate proportional to the biomass for each age class. If so, a higher F value indicates age classes with less abundance rather than age classes subject to higher fishing pressure. This is an interesting aspect that deserves further investigation, particularly if it leads to improvements in the trap to reduce pressure on these older animals that may have a higher reproductive potential.
The assessment team does not advocate the use of any specific platform, and any will be considered acceptable to conduct assessments. However, the assessment team does recommend considering the use of approaches that are not only statistically stronger, but also more versatile to allow for a broad set of analyses, including the incorporation of environmental effects correlated to cohort strength. In particular, the team is concerned about the use of modelling approaches that can’t directly analyse lengths. Direct conversions from lengths to age introduce considerable uncertainty, particularly if no other analyses are carried out to understand the effect of variability in length at age. The uncertainty introduced in length to age conversions may affect estimates of the contribution of maturing animals to the spawning stock that is not vulnerable to the fishery. If other approaches are considered it may be possible to include formal statistical comparisons of model performance and to further investigate potential effects.
In terms of observation error, the stock assessment includes probability distributions of parameters associated to the logistic model parameters and for MSY. However, no indications are made as to how these distributions were computed. When using the ADAPT platform a series of indices are included to represent uncertainty. Most of these indices are only shown in tables but little to none description or discussion is included. In addition, some statements are incorrect or inaccurate, for
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 72 of 199
example, the report states that low CVs associated to the bootstrapping results indicate that “biomass was well estimated” (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015, p. 47). A low CV indicates that the resulting estimate has a high level of accuracy, but tells nothing about the level of bias of the estimator. This estimator may be very accurate but could be highly biased, resulting in a poorly estimated biomass. Similarly, a low CV may partly be due to low variability in the data, but it does not address goodness of fit as stated in Section 4.6.3 “Uncertainty” of the report. The audit team suggests greater caution in the interpretation of these results.
The uncertainty associated to the reconstructed trends in ADAPT is also unusual (Figures 28 and 29, Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015, p. 48-49). The team recommends a more detailed discussion explaining the narrowing of confidence intervals as they go back in time, this should also include input from the external peer reviewers. The data show that every year an important proportion of lobsters are left to grow and reproduce which assures continuous supply of animals of legal size. These analytical approaches need to be further improved by using more versatile assessment methodologies or at least investigating the sensitivity of the results in critical assumptions including variability in growth, terminal F and natural mortality. The trends in catch and effort may contain more information than that which has been captured by the approaches used so far, therefore it becomes necessary to further investigate the trends in these data sets. It is also essential to compute confidence intervals for the trend in the biomass dynamics model and to revise the intervals in the ADAPT platform. Recommendation: The harvest strategy must be complemented with the definition of a limit reference point and that the control rule implemented as described in PI 1.2.2. Principle 2: Bait Recommendation: Provide information of small pelagic species included under the category “sardine” that are used as bait and recorded in the monthly bait record reports done by the FEDECOOP cooperatives. Recommendation: Provide information registered by CONAPESCA on the composition of the capture of small pelagic species of the western coast of Baja California. Bycatch species / monitoring system Recommendation: It is recommended that logbook information record whether bycatch species are retained, discarded (returned to the water) or released alive. Recommendation: include in the monitoring system an on board and landings sampling for ground truthing of logbooks information. Principle 3. Recommendation: Produce an updated review of the management system at the internal and external level (including non-target species).
6.4. Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement
(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 73 of 199
1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the Assessment Team about whether or not the fishery should be certified. (Reference: CR 27.16)
(REQUIRED FOR PCR)
2. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-makers in response to the Determination recommendation.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 74 of 199
References
Ayala, Y., González-Avilés, J.G. and Espinoza-Castro, G.. 1988. Biología y pesca de langosta en el Pacífico Mexicano. In Los Recursos Pesqueros del País, pp. 251-286. Secretaría de Pesca, México, D.F.
Arenas-Fuentes, P.R., and Diaz de Leon, A. 2000. Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en Mexico: Evaluación y Manejo 1997-1998. INP-SEMARNAP. 691 pp.
Arteaga-Ríos, L.D., Carrillo-Laguna, J., Belmar-Pérez J. and Guzmán del Próo, A. 2007. Post-larval settlement of California spiny lobster Panulirus interruptus in Bahía Tortugas, Baja California and its relationship to commercial catch. Fisheries Research 88:51-55.
Barsky, K.C.. 2001. California spiny lobster. Pp 98-100. In: Leet, W.S., Dewees, W.S., Klingbeil, R. & Larson E.J. (eds.) California‘s Living Marine Resources: a status report. California Department of Fish and Games, CA, USA..
Booth, J.D. and Phillips, B.F. 1994. Early life history of spiny lobster. Crustaceana. 66: 271-294
Castaneda-Fernández de Lara, V., Butler, M., Hernández-Vázquez, S., Guzmán del Próo, S.A. and Serviere-Zaragoza, E.. 2005. Determination of preferred habitats of early benthic juvenile California spiny lobster, Panulirus interruptus, on the Pacific coast of Baja California Sur, Mexico. Marine and Freshwater Research 56: 1037-1045.
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1992. Decreto. Ley Federal sobre Metrologia y Normalización.1º de julio de 1992. 19pp
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1993. NORMA Oficial Mexicana 006-PESC-1993, para regular el aprovechamiento de todas las especies de langosta en las aguas de Jurisdicción Federal del Golfo de México y mar Caribe, así como del Océano Pacífico incluyendo el Golfo de California. 31/12/1993. 18 pp.
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federacion. 2005. Acuerdo por el que se modifican las epocas y zonas de veda de la langosta azul (Panulirus inflatus), langosta verde (P. gracilis) y langosta roja (P. interruptus), en aguas de jurisdiccion federal del Oceano Pacifico, incluyendo el Golfo de California. Miercoles 31 de agosto de 2005. Segunda seccion, pp 1-3.
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2007a. Decreto por el que se expide la Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganaderia, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación. Martes 24 de Julio de 2007. Primera Sección, pp 25-60.
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2007b. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-029-PESC-2006, Pesca responsable de tiburónes y rayas. Especificaciones para su aprovechamiento. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganaderia, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA, México), 14 de febrero de 2007. Primera sección, pp. 60–102.
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2007c. Modificación a la Norma Oficial Mexicana 006-PESC- 1993, para regular el aprovechamiento de todas las especies de langosta en las aguas de Jurisdicción Federal del Golfo de México y mar Caribe, así como del Océano Pacífico incluyendo el Golfo de California, publicada el 31 de diciembre de 1993. 15/06/2007. 8 pp.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 75 of 199
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2009. Modificación a la Norma Oficial Mexicana 006-PESC-1993, para regular el aprovechamiento de todas las especies de langosta en las aguas de Jurisdicción Federal del Golfo de México y mar Caribe, así como del Océano Pacífico incluyendo el Golfo de California. 12/10/2009. 2 pp.
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2012a. Acuerdo por le que se da a conocer la actualización de la Carta Nacional Pesquera. SAGARPA. 24 de agosto de 2012. 241 pp.
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2012b. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT, México), 24 de agosto de 2012. Segunda sección.
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2012c. Acuerdo por le que se da a conocer el Plan de Manejo Pesquero para la Pesquería de Pelágicos Menores (sardinas, anchovetas, macarela y afines) del Noroeste de México. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT, México), 8 de noviembre de 2012. Primera sección.
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2012d. Acuerdo por el que se expiden las Reglas para la creación, integración, organización y operación del Comité Consultivo Nacional de Normalización Agroalimentaria. SAGARPA. 26 de noviembre de 2012.
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2014. Acuerdo por el que se modifica el similar por el que se establecen las épocas y zonas de veda de la langosta azul (Panulirus inflatus), langosta verde (Panulirus gracilis) y langosta roja, publicado el 31 de agosto de 2005.Miercoles 24 de septiembre de 2014. Primera seccion, pp27-29.
DOF, Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2015. Acuerdo por el que se modifica el similar por el que se establecen las épocas y zonas de veda de la langosta azul (Panulirus inflatus), langosta verde (Panulirus gracilis) y langosta roja, publicado el 31 de agosto de 2005. Lunes 14 de septiembre de 2015. Primera seccion, 21-23.
Enciso, C. and C.E. Cotero. 2014. Evaluación de la pesquería de sardina Monterrey (Sardinops caeruleus) en la costa occidental de Baja California a partir de datos de capturas. XXII Taller de Pelágicos Menores. INAPESCA. Ensenada, Baja California. Junio 2014.
Enciso, C., Quiñonez-Velázquez, C., and R., Felix-Uraga. 2014. Stock assessment of Sardina Monterrey (Sardinops caeruleus) on the West Coast of Baja California by catch data 1980-2013. Trinational Sardine Forum. 15th Annual Meeting. INAPESCA. La Paz, BCS. November 10-11, 2014.
Enciso, C. and C.E. Cotero. 2015. La pesquería de pelágicos menores en la costa occidental de Baja California, temporada de pesca 2014. In XXIII TALLER DE PELAGICOS MENORES. LA PAZ, Baja California Sur, June 10-12, 2015
Eno, N.C., MacDonald, D.S., Kinnear, J.A.M., Amos, S.C., Chapman, C.J., Robin A.C., Bunker, F. St P.D. and Munro C. .2001. Effects of crustacean traps on benthic fauna. ICES Journal of Marine Science 58:11-20.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 76 of 199
García-Rodríguez, F.J., and Perez-Enriquez, R. 2006. Genetic differentiation of the California spiny lobster Panulirus interruptus (Randall, 1840) along the west coast of Baja California Peninusla, Mexico. Marine Biology. 148: 621-629.
Guzmán del Próo, S.A., Carrillo-Laguna, J., Belmar-Pérez, J., de la Campa, S. and Villa, A. 1996. The puerulus settlement of red spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) in Bahía Tortugas, Baja California, México. Crustaceana 69: 949-57.
Hilborn, R. and Mangel, M. 1997. The Ecological Detective: confronting models with data. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA. 315 pp.
Hilborn, R. and Walters, C.J. 1992. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: choice, dynamics & uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, New York, USA. 570 pp.
Hill K. T., Crone P.R., Dorval E. and Macewicz B. J. 2015. Assessment of the Pacific sardine resource in 2015 for U.S.A. management in 2015-16. Agenda Item G.1.a Full Assessment Report (ELECTRONIC ONLY) April 2015.
Hill K. T., Crone P.R., Dorval E. and Macewicz B. J. 2015. Assessment of the Pacific sardine resource in 2016 for U.S.A. management in 2016-17. Preliminary draft for SSC CPS Subbommitttee review on 10 March 2016. February 2016.
INAPESCA. 2006. Plan de monitoreo intensivo y metodologia de muestreo del proceso reproductivo de langosta (Panulirus spp) en la costa occidental de la peninsula de BC, para revisar la efectividad del esquema de veda por zonas y otras regulaciones pesqueras. La Paz, B.C.S. Agosto 2006. 9 pp.
INAPESCA. 2010. Programa operativo anual 2010. Prospección, evaluacion y manejo de langostas (Panulirus spp) en las costas de Baja California Sur. La Paz, B.C.S. 14 de Agosto de 2009. INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 24 pp.
Instituto Nacional de Ecología. 2000. Programa de Manejo de la Reserva de la Biosfera El Vizcaino.
Instituto Nacional de Ecología. 2006. Plan de monitoreo intensivo y metodología de muestreo del proceso reproductivo de langosta (Panulirus spp) en la costa occidental de la Península de BC, para revisar la efectividad del esquema de veda por zonas y otras regulaciones pesqueras. Proyecto Langosta 12099 apoyado por el FONDO SAGARPA-CONACYT, vigencia 2006-2007 y cobertura regional, CRIPs La Paz-Ensenada-Mazatlán-Nayarit).
Johnson, M. W.. 1960. The offshore drift of larvae of California spiny lobster, Panulirus interruptus. CALCOFI Reports No., 147-161 pp.
Jones, R. 1984. Assesing the effects of changes in exploitation pattern using length composition data (with notes on VPA and cohort analysis). FAO Fisheries Technical Papers No. 256. 118 pp.
Morales-Zarate, M.V., Lluch-Cota, S.E., Serviere-Zaragoza, E. (submitted). Modeling an exploited rocky costal ecosystem: Bahia Tortugas, Mexico.
Peñaloza-Mayorazgo M. 2008. Dinamica larval de langosta roja (Panulirus interruptus) en la costa occidental de la Peninsula de Baja California, Mexico, durante el ENOS 1997-1999. Tesis de Maestria en Ciencias en Manejo de Recursos Marinos, CICIMAR, IPN. Mexico. 75 pp.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 77 of 199
Pineda, J., Díaz de León A.J. and Uribe, F.. 1981. Fecundidad de langosta roja Panulirus interruptus (Randall 1842) en Baja California. Ciencia Pesquera, Inst. Nal. Pesca Sría. Pesca, México, 1, 99-118.
Pringle, J.D.. 1986. California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) larval retention and recruitment: a review and synthesis. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 43: 2142-2152.
Ramade-Villanueva, M., D. Romero-Arce, A. Espinoza-Montes, J.C. Bonilla-Gutiérrez, R. García-Arce, C. Salinas-Iván, R. Luna-Villalobos, A. Murillo-Cruz, D. Aguilar-Osuna and E. Enríquez- González. 2013. Reporte de la Temporada Langostera 2012/13. Federacion Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera “Baja California” F.C.L. 11 pp.
Ramade-Villanueva, M., D. Romero-Arce, A. Espinoza-Montes, J.C. Bonilla-Gutiérrez, R. García-Arce, C. Salinas-Iván, R. Luna-Villalobos, A. Murillo-Cruz, D. Aguilar-Osuna and E. Enríquez- González. 2013b. Reporte de Captura Incidental durante la Temporada Langostera 2012/13. Federacion Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera “Baja California” F.C.L. 11 pp
Ramade-Villanueva, M., D. Romero-Arce, A. Espinoza-Montes, J.C. Bonilla-Gutiérrez, R. García-Arce, C. Salinas-Iván, R. Luna-Villalobos, A. Murillo-Cruz, D. Aguilar-Osuna and E. Enríquez- González. 2014. Reporte de la Temporada Langostera 2013/14. Federacion Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera “Baja California” F.C.L. 7 pp.
Ramade-Villanueva, M., D. Romero-Arce, A. Espinoza-Montes, J.C. Bonilla-Gutiérrez, R. García-Arce, C. Salinas-Iván, R. Luna-Villalobos, A. Murillo-Cruz, D. Aguilar-Osuna and E. Enríquez- González. 2015. Reporte de la Temporada Langostera 2014/15. Federacion Regional de Sociedades Cooperativas de la Industria Pesquera “Baja California” F.C.L. 11 pp.
Restrepo, V. 1998. Dynamic depletion models. Pp 345-356. In: FAO/WECAFC Report on the FAO/DANIDA/ CFRAMP/ WECAFC Regional workshops on the assessment of the Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus). Belize City, Belize, 21 April-2 May 1997 and Merida, Yucatan, Mexico 1-12 June 1998. FAO Fisheries Report No. 619. Rome, FAO.
Samaniego, A., A. Peralta and A. Aguirre. 2007. Vertebrados de las islas del Pacíf̕ico de Baja California: guía de campo. Instituto Nacional de Ecología.
SCS (2012). MSC Public Certification Report. Western Australia Rock Lobster Fishery.
Shester, G.G. 2008. Sustainability in small-scale fisheries: an analysis of the ecosystem impacts, fishing behavior and spatial management using participatory research methods. Doctor of Philosophy Degree Thesis. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. September, 2008. 225 pp.
Sierra, R.P., Zarate B.E., Muciño, M and Vélez A. 1998. Incorporación de la variabilidad ambiental en los modelos de producción excedente e incertidumbre en el proceso de ajuste. Informe Técnico. INP-SEMARNAP.
State of California Ocean Protection Council (OPC). 2016. Rapid assessment. Pacific Sardine (Sardinops sagax). http://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/project_pages/Rapid%20Assessments/Pacific%20Sardine. pdf
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 78 of 199
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015-4.
Vega-Velázquez. A.. 1991. Sinopsis evolutiva de la pesquería de la langosta roja (Panulirus interruptus) Randall 1840, en el litoral pacífico de la península de Baja California y su relación con los mecanismos regulatorios. Documento Interno. Fed. Reg. de Socs. Coop. Ind. Pesq. ¨Baja California¨ México. F. C. L. 31pp.
Vega-Velázquez A.. 2003. Dinámica poblacional, evaluación y manejo de la langosta roja (Panulirus interruptus) en la costa central de la península de Baja California. Informe Técnico. CRIP La Paz, INP-SAGARPA. 86 pp.
Vega-Velázquez A. 2006. Langosta de la península de Baja California. Pp 155-210. In: Arreguín, S.F., Beléndez M.L., Méndez GH.I.,Solana S.R. & Range, D.C. Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsable en México: Evaluación y Manejo. INAPESCA-SAGARPA. 560 pp.
Vega-Velázquez, V.A., Gómez, R.C., Espinoza, C.G. and Sierra, R.P. Langosta de Baja California Panulirus interruptus. In: Arenas, P.R. y Diaz de Leon, A. (eds). (2000) Sustentabilidad y Pesca Responsible en Mexico: Evaluación y Manejo 1997-1998. INP-SEMARNAP. 691 pp.
Vega-Velázquez, A., J. Castro, A. Vega y R. Sánchez. 2014. Plan de manejo pesquero para las langostas espinosas (Panulirus sp) de la Penísula de Baja California. Insituto Nacional de Pesca. Direccion General adjunta de investigación pesquera en el Pacífico. Centro Regional de Investigación pesquera La Paz. Centro Regional de Investigación pesquera Ensenada. La Paz. Baja California Sur. Abril de 2014.
Vega-Velázquez, A., G.A. Jimenez-Llanos, A. Vega-Bolaños, E. Camacho-Bareño and J.C. Monroy. 2015. Evaluacion de la pesqueria de langosta roja (Panulirus interruptus), en la region centro occidental de la península de Baja California: Estado actual temporada 2014-2015. Informe de investigacion (preliminar). SAGARPA-INAPESCA/CRIP La Paz. 61 pp.
Withy-Allen. K.R.Y. 2010. California Spiny Lobster (Panulirus interruptus) Movement Behavior and Habitat Use: Implications for the Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas. Mater of Science Degree Thesis. Faculty of San Diego State University. San Diego, CA, USA. 45 pp.
Personal communications. Mario Ramade (2015 and 2016). President FEDECOOP.
Personal communications. FEDECOOP technician (2015).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 79 of 199
Appendices
Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale
6.4.1. Principle 1 Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
a It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of certainty is above the point where stock is above the point that the stock is above the point recruitment would be where recruitment would where recruitment would be impaired. be impaired. impaired.
Guidepost Met? (Y) (Y) (Y) The most recent stock assessment includes two different analytical approaches to estimate biomass trends (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015). The results of the two approaches are inconsistent in terms of the annual absolute abundance and overall biomass trajectory over the history of the fishery. However, the results from both approaches consistently indicate that the stock biomass is above the level producing MSY. The VPA approach suggests there has been a decline in biomass since 2011, but the abundance of pre-recruits of age 6 shows a slight increment in 2014. In addition, the stock assessment provided
evidence that the fishery is almost exclusively targeting lobsters above the legal size of 82.5 mm, sparing a portion of the population that has not yet recruited to the fishery but is already above the size of sexual maturity (the pre-recruits). In addition, recruitment is also protected by a management measure prohibiting the catch of egg-bearing females. The evidence provides a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where
Justification recruitment would be impaired and meets SG100. b The stock is at or There is a high degree of certainty fluctuating around its that the stock has been fluctuating target reference point. around its target reference point, or has been above its target
Guidepost reference point, over recent years. Met? (Y) (N)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 80 of 199
The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing
The proposed TRP for this fishery is the biomass producing MSY. Under the assumptions of the biomass production model, the estimated biomass trend is always above the level producing MSY and the trend in catch history is always below the estimated MSY. The fishing mortality rate obtained with the biomass production model for 2014-2015 was lower than the estimated rate producing MSY, indicating that overfishing was not taking place. The report concludes that under the VPA analysis “exploitable biomass was very similar to recorded catch, although the later didn’t exceed the exploitable biomass, which indicates that the fishery has not exceeded the MSY and that a slight increment in exploitable biomass could take place given the slight increment of pre-recruits of age 6”. This is sufficient to conclude that the stock is at least at or around its target reference
point, possibly above and meets SG80. Although the stock assessment report concludes that the current biomass is estimated to be between 70% and 80% of the estimated Bo, the inconsistencies between the two analytical approaches suggest that some methodological issues need to be resolved to reduce uncertainty from model performance before there can be any conclusions drawn as to the relative status of the stock above the
Justification TRP.
References Vega-Velázquez et al. (2015).
Stock Status relative to Reference Points
Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative
point point to reference point Target reference Bmsy 9,930 mt (computed with 40 to 60% above Bmsy point the biomass dynamics model).
Limit reference Undetermined point
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 81 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generic limit and target Reference points are
reference points are appropriate for the stock based on justifiable and and can be estimated. reasonable practice appropriate for the
Guidepost species category. Met? (Y) (Y) The lobster chapter in the Red Book (Vega 2006) is a document that serves as informative support for the CNP. The Red Book defined that the stock “optimum” level is when the biomass is Bo/2 which, under the assumption of a symmetric production curve, represents the level producing MSY. Although this definition is not explicitly binding, the team recognized in the language of several documents the concept of a target reference point “consistent with BMSY”. The Management Plan Draft established that the main goal is to “continue harvesting at a sustainable level” (INAPESCA 2014). The diagnostics section in the Plan indicates that the stock is above an “optimal level” of Bo/2 and the catch near MSY. One regular approach in the assessment of this stock is the use of a biomass dynamics model with symmetric production curve which has its maximum production level at Bo/2 (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015). Therefore, it is acceptable to say that the sustainability goal in the Plan implies that the stock’s desirable state, the target, is the biomass producing MSY. The CNP stated in the 2012 version (the current version), that the stock is “slightly above the optimum level” in terms of Bact/Bo, which is also interpreted as an indication that the target reference point for this fishery is BMSY. This fishery has not explicitly declared a limit reference point or a level where recruitment would be impaired as defined in MSC CR V1.3 CB2.3.1. There is only a brief mention about LRP in the draft Plan which includes a “Line of Action” to estimate target and limit reference points. As it is, the management of this fishery evaluates the status of the stock and is expected to take action if the stock drops below the target. This is an unexpected situation because the tools are such that work to prevent effort to increase indiscriminately and recruitment is protected through a minimum legal size above the size of first reproduction and protection of berried females. The evidence indicates that biomass has been above the TRP and with this, according to the Guidance to the CR v1.3. GCB2.3.3, the management strategy would be working under an implied LRP because the stock is well above the level where there’s an appreciable risk or recruitment impairment and the harvest rate is reduced long before the stock reaches this point. This approximation to reference points combined with tools to protect recruitment was
taken as sufficient grounds to accept that reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category meeting SG60. At SG80 the target reference point is appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. Although the limit reference point cannot be estimated without previous explicit definition, the LRP is operating implicitly under a management strategy that aims to keep the stock at or above
Justification Bmsy. The fishery meets the standard at SG80. b The limit reference point The limit reference point is set
is set above the level at above the level at which there is which there is an an appreciable risk of impairing appreciable risk of reproductive capacity following impairing reproductive consideration of precautionary
Guidepost capacity. issues.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 82 of 199
PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock
Met? (N) (N)
There’s no definition of limit reference point.
Justification c The target reference The target reference point is such point is such that the that the stock is maintained at a stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some level consistent with BMSY measure or surrogate with similar
or some measure or intent or outcome, or a higher surrogate with similar level, and takes into account intent or outcome. relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock
Guidepost with a high degree of certainty. Met? (Y) (N)
See scoring issue (a) for discussion about the definition of the target reference point. The target reference point is consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome meeting SG80. The target reference point, however, does not take into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock required to reach SG 100.
Justification d
For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological
Guidepost role of the stock. Met? (Not relevant)
Not a key low trophic level species.
Justification
References INAPESCA (2014); Vega-Velázquez (2015)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1-1. Define explicit reference points that are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The Limit Reference Point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. The target reference point works to maintain the stock at a level consistent with Bmsy or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 83 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3 Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted,
depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to be strategies, which have a rebuilding stocks continuously and reasonable expectation there is strong evidence that of success, are in place. rebuilding will be complete within
Guidepost the specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]
Justification b A rebuilding timeframe A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable is specified for the specified for the depleted rebuilding timeframe is specified depleted stock that is stock that is the shorter which does not exceed one the shorter of 30 years of 20 years or 2 times its generation time for the depleted or 3 times its generation generation time. For stock.
time. For cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less than 5 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 timeframe is up to 5
Guidepost years. years. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]
Justification C Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that determine whether the they are rebuilding rebuilding strategies are stocks, or it is highly likely effective in rebuilding based on simulation
the stock within a modelling or previous specified timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified
Guidepost timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 84 of 199
Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe
[Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring issue]
Justification References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 85 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is responsive expected to achieve responsive to the state of to the state of the stock and is stock management the stock and the designed to achieve stock objectives reflected in elements of the harvest management objectives reflected the target and limit strategy work together in the target and limit reference
reference points. towards achieving points. management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference
Guidepost points. Met? (Y) (Y) (N) The Guidance to the CR V1.3 at GCB2.5 indicates that the key elements of the harvest strategy are: a) The control rules and tools in place; b) The information base and monitoring and c) The assessment method. The same section indicates that the harvest strategy is expected to work towards achieving management objectives expressed in the reference points. The harvest strategy of the red rock lobster fishery in central Baja California has been outlined in a Management Plan Draft. Although the plan is still unpublished, the objectives, the tools, the monitoring and assessment approach have been operative for years with the result of a stock that is meeting the main sustainability goal. a) Only a target reference point has been implied and the strategy operates around the concept to maintain the stock at the level producing MSY. There is no limit reference point. There is a basic definition of a control rule, but cannot be considered as pre-agreed, well defined and in place to operate reducing the intensity of harvest under explicit criteria. The team was provided, however, with evidence that there are active mechanisms of co- management where the fishers communicate with authorities to control effort and to adjust measures to aim stock stability around the target reference points. b) There is a monitoring program operating in coordination between the cooperatives and the INAPESCA so that the tools are informed and a stock assessment is possible. c) There are multiple assessment approaches that have been used as outlined in the background to Principle 1. The team concluded that the harvest strategy is achieving the stock management objective reflected in the target reference point and meets SG60. Despite the fact that the control rule wasn’t demonstrated to be operationally functional, this system can be considered to be responsive to the state of the stock by virtue of the value that the resource represents to the fishers which works as a strong incentive to comply with the regulations and scientific advice. The FEDECOOP therefore maintains active and continuous communication with the authorities to evaluate if changes in the current management actions are required and such changes are implemented expediently. For example, there is recent evidence that the cooperatives voluntarily reduced their catches to maintain
optimal economic returns from the fishery. Under such circumstances, the elements of the strategy work together to achieve the management objectives reflected at least in the target reference point. The team concluded that the fishery can meet the requirements of this scoring issue at SG80. The team however is recommending that the harvest strategy must be complemented with the definition of a limit reference point and that the control
Justification rule is implemented as described in PI 1.2.2.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 86 of 199
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the harvest
likely to work based on not have been fully strategy has been fully evaluated prior experience or tested but evidence and evidence exists to show that it plausible argument. exists that it is achieving is achieving its objectives including its objectives. being clearly able to maintain
Guidepost stocks at target levels. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
The results of the stock assessment (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015) are evidence that the elements in the harvest strategy are working to achieve its objectives by keeping the stock at or above the level producing MSY. See details in sections 4.4 through 4.7 in the Background. This meets the standard at SG80. The performance of the strategy has not been evaluated to demonstrate that it is capable of achieving its objectives, therefore it
Justification cannot reach SG100. c
Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is
Guidepost working. Met? (Y)
The team was provided with evidence of a general monitoring program that conducts both fisheries independent surveys and collects landings information (Vega-Velázquez (2006) and the development of annual operative programs that outline the activities of the research program (Vega-Velázquez 2009). The information from these programs is used in the stock assessments and to determine management actions in the harvest strategy. This
Justification meets the standard at SG60. d
The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.
Guidepost Met? (N)
The team was provided with evidence that certain elements of the harvest strategy (e.g. adjustments in the span of the closure season; DOF 2015) respond to technical recommendations from analysis of the available data. However, the evaluation team didn’t receive any evidence that the strategy is reviewed and improved as necessary an as a result it is missing a critical aspect of the requirements (a pre-agreed, well-defined and in place harvest control rule). This scoring issue cannot reach SG100.
Justification e
It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of certainty finning is not taking shark finning is not taking that shark finning is not taking place. place. place.
Guidepost Met? (Not relevant) (Not relevant) (Not relevant)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 87 of 199
PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place
The target species is not a shark.
Justification
References DOF (2015); Vega-Velázquez (2006); Vega-Velázquez (2009); Vega-Velázquez et al. (2015)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): RECOMMENDATION:
The harvest strategy must be complemented with the definition of a limit reference point and that the control rule implemented as described in PI 1.2.2.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 88 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2
PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in place control rules are in place that are consistent with that are consistent with the harvest strategy and the harvest strategy and which act to reduce the ensure that the
exploitation rate as limit exploitation rate is reference points are reduced as limit approached. reference points are approached.
Guidepost Met? (Y) (N) The red rock lobster fishery of Baja California has operated under the application of traditional passive management strategies such as minimum legal size and protection of egg bearing females. For this reason, there are no binding documents with well-defined, pre-agreed harvest control rules that are designed to reduce effort in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points (SG80). At SG60 HCRs don’t need to be well defined, there needs to be “at least some implicit agreement supported by past management actions from which to understand that ‘generally understood’ rules exist, and there should be no reason to expect that management will not continue to follow such generally understood rules in future” (MSC Interpretations Log).
The lobster chapter in the Red Book (Vega 2006) declares that if 퐸푠푡 = 퐵푡퐴푐푡푢푎푙⁄퐵푀푆푌, “stock status is determined according to the following decision rule:” Status 1. Est ≤ 1: The stock is below optimum level ⇒ Recovery strategy required. Status 2. Est > 1: The stock is above optimum level ⇒ Fishery with further development potential. Status 3. Est = 1: The stock is at optimum level ⇒ The fishery is at the adequate level. The team did not receive any evidence that this rule is systematically used either to define a recovery strategy or to explicitly describe how to compute the catch amount for further development of the fishery. There wasn’t either any evidence of a formal procedure to translate or connect actual actions to the decision reached if the rule was applied. . For example under “recovery strategy” there are no procedures or actions, explaining how the strategy would change the length of the closure season or the number of active traps. Fishing effort is regulated based on an internal process at each cooperative that takes into account the performance of fishers, stock size, technical recommendations from INAPESCA staff and economic factors (see details in section 4.8 on Management in the Background). This process is guaranteed as a safe guard to hold the exclusive rights granted in the concession title obtained to harvest a specific area. As per the needs at the SG 60, this is
interpreted as an informal approach in which understood rules are in place and are consistent with the harvest strategy. The MSC Interpretations log also says that “Evidence that positive action has been taken in the past should be considered to be evidence that there is a generally understood rule in place.” To indicate “whether the fishery will in future take appropriate management action in line with what they perceive as the
Justification ‘generally understood’ rule. The history of the fishery also demonstrates that in practice,
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 89 of 199
fishing pressure has been consistently and systematically maintained to keep the stock above its optimal level (Bmsy proxy). The current approach doesn’t act to reduce exploitation effort as a limit reference point is approached because no limit reference point has been declared, but evidence indicates an effective process to modify the current operation of tools and agreements to prevent the stock to depart from the estimated current biomass status above the level producing MSY. Although not adhering precisely to the definition at SG60, the team considered that the approach is equivalent in intent and outcome and accepted it meets the standard at SG60. Because there’s no explicit pre-agreed, well-defined rule in place, the fishery cannot meet SG80.
b The selection of the The design of the harvest control harvest control rules rules takes into account a wide takes into account the range of uncertainties. main uncertainties.
Guidepost Met? (N) (N)
The Guidance to the CR V1.3 indicates in GCB2.6, that uncertainty can be addressed by
testing either through simulation, comparison with analogous fisheries or empirical testing. No evidence was provided to indicate that such type of testing or other approach to evaluate the potential impacts of the main uncertainties on the decisions made after application of the control rule. The SG80 cannot be met in this scoring issue.
Justification c There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the that tools used to indicates that the tools in tools in use are effective in
implement harvest use are appropriate and achieving the exploitation levels control rules are effective in achieving the required under the harvest control appropriate and exploitation levels rules. effective in controlling required under the exploitation. harvest control rules.
Guidepost Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
The team was provided with evidence that tools to control minimum size are working. The cooperative has strict rules to punish fishers that violate the size and egg bearing female restrictions. Evidence was also provided that adjustments have been made in the span of the closure season when deemed necessary (DOF 2015). The result is a stock assessment indicating that the biomass is above the level producing MSY (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015). The team concluded that the evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the sustainability objective stated in the harvest strategy; this was considered to meet SG80.
Justification DOF (2015); Vega (2006); Vega-Velázquez et al. (2015). References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1-2 The harvest control rule must be pre-agreed, well defined and in place; it must be consistent with the harvest strategy to ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the limit reference point is approached. 1-3 The selection of the control rule must take into account the main uncertainties.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 90 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock structure, stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock productivity, fleet productivity and fleet productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, composition is available composition and other fishery removals and other
to support the harvest data is available to information such as strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be
directly related to the current
Guidepost harvest strategy, is available. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y) The cooperatives work closely with INAPESCA to obtain a comprehensive range of information from accurate catch records, fishing effort, cooperative membership and gear
inventory, biological data such as length, sex and reproductive state. This information is considered sufficient to support the harvest strategy and meet the requirements of this scoring issue at SG100. Given the complexity and novelty of the model, However, the team recommends developing a program to obtain additional information to analyze and discuss the hypothesis that the stock harvested by the UoA is a self-sustaining part of a
Justification metapopulation. b Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored monitored and at least regularly monitored at a with high frequency and a high one indicator is available level of accuracy and degree of certainty, and there is a and monitored with coverage consistent with good understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to the harvest control rule, uncertainties in the information support the harvest and one or more [data] and the robustness of
control rule. indicators are available assessment and management to and monitored with this uncertainty. sufficient frequency to support the harvest
Guidepost control rule. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
Stock abundance, catch and fishing effort, as well as biological information is regularly monitored at the level of accuracy required by the current management structure.
Although not pre-agreed, a well understood and in place rule exists, it is accepted that a control rule constructed to be consistent with the concept of Bmsy will have the required information. Therefore the team accepts this scoring issue meets the standard at SG80. At the SG100 level, the requirements are that there is a good understanding of uncertainties and the robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty; therefore the
Justification scoring issue at SG100 cannot be met.
c There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.
Guidepost Met? Y
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 91 of 199
PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy
Because of the rights-based management system and the high value of the red rock lobster, a significantly large surveillance program is run by the cooperatives in coordination with the CONAPESCA local offices. The FEDECOOP members in charge of this program reported at the onsite that illegal fishing is rare and culprits are not members of a cooperative. Considering the size of the surveillance program and the low expected illegal catch the team concluded there is good information on fishery removals conducted by non-FEDECOOP fishers. This meets the standard at SG80
Justification
References [List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 92 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The assessment is The assessment is appropriate for appropriate for the stock the stock and for the harvest
and for the harvest control rule and takes into control rule. account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the
Guidepost fishery. Met? (Y) (N) The stock assessment was conducted in three sections to address the main questions that operate in the current management structure. It first continued gathering size data to determine compliance to minimum legal size requirements; updated the population dynamics estimation by means of a biomass dynamics model and improved population analysis using a virtual population analysis. The modelling approach allowed the determination of stock status relative to MSY (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015). The assessment is appropriate for the stock and the current management approach meeting SG80. The
stock assessments are also addressing some of the main features of the biology of the species, however, the assessment still needs to be improved and a recommendation is made to resolve inconsistencies that produce abundance estimates that are widely different and other issues that are pointed out in SI (c) and represent significant uncertainties that need to be resolved. For this reason the standard at SG100 cannot be
Justification met.
b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points.
Guidepost Met? (Y)
The stock assessment produces indicators of stock status relative to the level producing Bmsy (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015).
Justification
c The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into account identifies major sources uncertainty into account. uncertainty and is evaluating stock of uncertainty. status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.
Guidepost Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 93 of 199
PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status
The stock assessments have used alternative modelling approaches, in search of better ways to address specific issues such as age specific effects due to effort and selectivity (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2010; Vega-Velázquez et al. 2013; Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015). This effort has not yet led to consistent results and needs to continue until the problems are at least understood and discussed. Observation error has also been incorporated in the analysis, but the confidence intervals associated with the trends in the VPA are unusual and still need to be discussed or explained. The biomass dynamics computes probability distributions about relevant parameters but there is no explanation about how they are computed. Additionally, there are estimates of uncertainty around the control parameters
but no confidence intervals were obtained for the biomass trajectory. The team concluded that the assessment takes uncertainty into account and meets SG80. Addressing the aforementioned issues is necessary to reach SG100, but the assessment also needs to address questions about the harvest rates on older animals as indicated at the end of section 4.4 on Stock assessment of the Background; and to evaluate stock status relative to
Justification reference points in a probabilistic way. d The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been
Guidepost rigorously explored. Met? (N)
No tests of sensitivity or other analytical approaches to robustness have been conducted, therefore this scoring issue cannot reach SG100.
Justification
e The assessment of stock The assessment has been status is subject to peer internally and externally peer review. reviewed.
Guidepost Met? (Y) (Y)
The team received letters from two external reviewers indicating that in general the results of the stock assessment are adequate and meet the requirement of evaluating the status of the stock relative to management reference points (Puga-Millán 2015; Guzmán del Próo 2015). The report by Puga-Millán (2015) states: “the scientific evidence provided show that the fishery in the central zone has been well managed, is ecologically sustainable”. The
Justification fishery meets the requirement of this scoring issue at SG100. References Guzmán del Próo (2015); Puga-Millán (2015); Vega-Velázquez et al. (2010); Vega-Velázquez et al. (2013); Vega-Velázquez et al. (2015) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
6.4.2. Principle 2 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 94 of 199
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main retained species Main retained species are There is a high degree of certainty are likely to be within highly likely to be within that retained species are within biologically based limits biologically based limits biologically based limits and (if not, go to scoring (if not, go to scoring issue fluctuating around their target
Guidepost issue c below). c below). reference points. Met? Y Y N The main retained species in the fishery by catch volume is the Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), which is used for bait. It comprises close to 70% of the total catch by weight for 2014/15 season. 55% is purchased in the city of Ensenada and the remaining 45% is caught locally by members of the FEDECOOP cooperatives. As described in the background (Bait: Sardines and Finfish p. 42), the “sardine” group includes several small pelagic species, however, in 2014 Pacific sardine was the dominant species in the group. Information needs to appropriately understand contribution of other small pelagic species across different years are addressed in PI 2.1.3 The sardines purchased in Ensenada come from the sardine fishery on the west coast of Baja California. The origin of capture for sardines sourced from Ensenada is not fully known because the catch can come from different fleets operating off Sinaloa, Sonora or Ensenada and could therefore be both northern (fished off Ensenada) or southern (fished off Sinaloa or Sonora) stocks. Satellite oceanography data attributes >99% of sardine landed in Ensenada during the last two fishing seasons, 2013-14 and 2014-15, to the southern stock (Hill et al. 2016) Enciso-Enciso et al. (2014), using a Catch-MSY method, estimated catch at maximum sustainable yield (CMSY) to be 138,147 mt, and BMSY=521,742 t for Pacific sardine on the West Coast of Baja California in Mexico. The authors don’t provide information on the status of the stock in reference to Bmsy, impeding determining whether sardines are within the biologically based limits. For the northern stock, ranging from northern Baja California, México to British Columbia, the 2015 stock biomass, based on average of recruitments from 2012-2014, was projected to be 64,422 mt (Hill. et al 2016). This value was below the CUTOFF limit of 150,000 mt assigned by the PFMC. Though the northern stock is estimated to be below the reference points established by the US management agencies (Hill et al. 2016), and there is no available biomass estimate for the southern stock, sardines used for bait in the lobster fishery represent only a ”marginal contribution” (6 %) of the fishery of the West Coast of California, it is highly unlikely that the volume of sardine used for bait would hinder the status or recovery of the sardine fishery, reaching SG80.
Because the assessment team do not have information on the source of bait or an independent biomass estimate for the southern stocka high degree of certainty cannot be reached.
Thus SG100 is not met.
Justification
b Target reference points are defined for retained species.
Guidepost
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 95 of 199
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species PI 2.1.1 and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Met? N
According to National Fisheries Chart (2012), small pelagics including sardines and mackerel, and lobsters have reference points defined. But there are no target reference point for the other retained species, including several species of white fish used for bait
Justification c If main retained species If main retained species are outside the limits are outside the limits there are measures in there is a partial strategy
place that are expected of demonstrably effective to ensure that the management measures fishery does not hinder in place such that the recovery and rebuilding fishery does not hinder
Guidepost of the depleted species. recovery and rebuilding. Met? Not scored Not scored
Not scored- None of the main retained species are in recovery or rebuilding
Justification d If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected
to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits
Guidepost or hindering recovery. Met? Not scored
Justification
References DOF (2012a); DOF (2012c) Enciso and Cotero (2014); Enciso-Enciso et al. (2014); Hill et al. (2015); Red book (2006); Vega et al. 2014. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 96 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that managing retained species. are expected to maintain is expected to maintain the main retained the main retained species species at levels which at levels which are highly are highly likely to be likely to be within
within biologically based biologically based limits, limits, or to ensure the or to ensure the fishery fishery does not hinder does not hinder their their recovery and recovery and rebuilding.
Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y N Sardine is the main retained species for this assessment. In Mexico the sardine fishery is managed according to measures established in the Mexican National Fisheries Charter (Camara Nacional Pesquera, CNP) (2012). NOM-003-PESC-1993 defines the main measures for this fishery, including, limitations in characteristics of the fishing gear and vessels, an exploitation rate of 0.25, and minimum size (150 mm in length), among others. These measures seek to prevent growth overfishing and contribute to the achievement of the management objectives of the 2012 Management Plan for Small Pelagics in the Northeast of Mexico (i.e. assess biomass and recruitment and establish minimum sizes). Under the Small Pelagics Management Plan pacific sardines are managed as “active species”, for which there is a MSY-based control rule outlining both a limit reference point (Biologically acceptable catch) and a target reference point (Optimum yield). The CNP established an optimum yield for every season of 700,000 mt for all small pelagics in Baja California and the Gulf of California. However, there is no evidence that reference points have been defined for the different Pacific sardines stocks. Sardines bought in Ensenada are regulated by these measures and the Co-ops are also enforcing these measures for the locally caught sardines which are above the 150 mm minimum length requirement. The Sardine captured locally for bait in the UoA/UoC are under the size regulations of the Small Pelagics federal fisheries management plan. Catch and size data is reported at landings. The minimum size is exceeded, according to data collected by the cooperatives. Additionally, the cooperatives use the Monthly Bait Production Record - Lobster Fishery form (Registro de Producción Mensual de Carnada- Pesquería de Langosta) to record the volume of bait used, including sardine locally caught, and landing tickets (aviso de arribo). It is expected that the partial strategy maintains the sardine within its biologically-based limits meeting SG80 (SG80). Although there are elements of a partial strategy outlined in the CNP, the Small Pelagics Fishery Plan, the landing records, among others, for the main retained species (sardines), there is no evidence that the reference points established in the management plan are
Justification responsive to the status of the stock.Therefore, it does not meet SG100.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 97 of 199
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high confidence considered likely to basis for confidence that that the strategy will work, based
work, based on plausible the partial strategy will on information directly about the argument (e.g., general work, based on some fishery and/or species involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with similar about the fishery and/or
Guidepost fisheries/species). species involved. Met? Y Y N
During the previous certification period (2011-2015), the use of the Monthly Bait Production Record - Lobster Fishery started and data were collecting on bait species, volume and origin of the sardines. There is evidence that some measures of the partial strategy will work, with the use of invoices for bait purchased in Ensenada and the monthly bait record reports done by the FEDECOOP cooperatives. The records include bait caught locally and individuals meet the minimum size required by the regulation. The partial strategy contributes to the achievement of the Small Pelagic Plan´s objective (i.e. To monitor the development of the fishery, with enough detail to make informed decisions and make necessary adjustments to management strategies; and Promote catch of adequate size to optimize yield and / or the unit value of recruits to the fishery). There is plausible argument that the partial strategy will work to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm. Confidence that the partial strategy will work is based on evidence from the fishery. This includes data from the logbooks, This
meets the requirements of SG60 and SG80 levels.
At the SG100 level, it is necessary that “testing supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved”. Since there is not a full strategy in place (see SI 2.1.2 a), subsequently, neither any testing
Justification support that the strategy will work. c
There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully.
Guidepost Met? Y N
Bait records provided in a monthly basis and the other measures such as seasonal closures based on monitoring and sardine assessments are evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented. However, there is an increase in the use of locally captured sardine as bait that is not being managed, but this continues to be small percentage with respect to the total lobster catch.
Justification There is some evidence that this partial strategy is being implementing successfully. d
There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective.
Guidepost Met? N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 98 of 199
There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the PI 2.1.2 fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species
At the SG 100 there is not a strategy for managing all retained species (major + minor), so this SG is not met.
Justification
e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of certainty finning is not taking shark finning is not taking that shark finning is not taking place. place. place.
Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant
Justification
References DOF (2012a); DOF (2012c); Ramade et al. 2014, 2015; SCS (2011).
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 99 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3
Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable
is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main retained information are available catch of all retained species and species taken by the on the amount of main the consequences for the status of fishery. retained species taken by affected populations.
Guidepost the fishery. Met? Y Y N In a monthly and seasonal manner, during the fishing season (September –February), the source and quantity of bait used during the fishing operations is recorded and summarized using a specific reporting form (Registro de Producción Mensual de Carnada- Pesquería de Langosta). The data recorded include both sardines purchased in Ensenada and captured locally. As mention above, other information sources are the landing tickets (aviso de arribo) in the case of retained species that are used for bait in the UoA, and records for sardine landed in Ensenada. The Fisheries Management Plan for small pelagics fishery presents information on historical trends of capture, fishing effort and CPUE. The assessment team received a report that provided details on species groups (e.g. sardine, mackerel, others) and amounts of bait used by each COOP during the fishing seasons 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15. There is qualitative and some quantitative information available on the amount and origin of sardine used for bait used in the fishery (SG80). Since the stock origin of sardines purchased in Ensenada remains unknown and accurate and verifiable information of origin
Justification was provided for this re-assessment, SG 100 is not met. b Information is adequate Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to
to qualitatively assess to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome outcome status with status with respect to status with a high degree of respect to biologically biologically based limits. certainty.
Guidepost based limits. Met? Y Sardines (N) Other N species (N)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 100 of 199
Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species
Pacific sardines: The information collected specifically to monitor sardines as a major commercial fishery in Mexico is adequate to broadly understand the status of Pacific sardine. However, the lack of biomass estimates for the southern stock prevents to estimate the status of the sardine with respect to the estimated biologically based limits. The team granted a score of SG80 for outcome in PI 2.1.1 scoring issue (a), since sardines used for bait in the lobster fishery represent only a “marginal contribution” of the overall sardine fishery of the West Coast of California, and thus unlikely to hinder the status or recovery of the sardine fishery. The small proportion of sardine purchased and captured by FEDECOOP, present numerous challenges to influencing management and information. Acknowledging MSC’s requirements that bait comes from well-managed and healthy stocks the team identifies as an initial step to understand from which stocks bait is sourced from. Additionally, information is needed on the composition of the catch of the main small pelagic fishery along the west coast of the Peninsula. Because bait from Ensenada comes from the commercial small pelagic fishery and the local catch takes places as regular small pelagic fishing, the team anticipated that the species composition in the lobster bait catch resembles the species composition in the commercial fishery. The SG80 is not met Other bait/retained species:
Information collected for other fish species used as bait, does not have the level of detail (origin, species, volume) to estimate outcome status. The SG80 is not met
Justification c Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to to support measures to to support a partial support a strategy to manage
manage main retained strategy to manage main retained species, and evaluate species. retained species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving
Guidepost its objective. Met? Y Y N
Overall the information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage the main retained species (sardine).
Justification d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of retained species is to be collected to detect conducted in sufficient detail to any increase in risk level assess ongoing mortalities to all (e.g. due to changes in retained species. the outcome indicator
score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the
Guidepost strategy) Met? Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 101 of 199
Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species
Sufficient data are collected on the Monthly Bait Production Record - Lobster Fishery
sheets to detect any increase in risk level for sardine, and other sources of information mentioned above (i.e. landing records, size data, CPUE) allow to detect any increase in risk level.
Justification
DOF (2012c); Ramade et al. 2014 and 2015 References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2-1-By second surveillance, provide information at the species level on the volume and source of bait and other retained species in this fishery.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 102 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1
The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main bycatch species are Main bycatch species are There is a high degree of certainty likely to be within highly likely to be within that bycatch species are within biologically based limits biologically based limits biologically based limits. (if not, go to scoring (if not, go to scoring issue
Guidepost issue b below). b below). Met? Y Y N This fishery has a low volume of bycatch species. Two shark species are considered ‘main’: horn sharks (Heterodontus francisci) and swell sharks (Cephaloscyllium ventriosum) which are considered vulnerable based on their life history traits (i.e. high age of sexual maturity/low fertility). According to the interviews with the technicians of the cooperatives and the FEDECOOP representative, the sharks are released alive, but the team received no evidence demonstrating that this occurs or quantifying live return rates.
There is a wide range of species that are caught in small numbers (minor) (Table 7). There
have been no analyses that demonstrate that these species are all within biologically- based limits. This is also the case for sharks. The status of these species is uncertain and biologically based limits are not available. On the basis that the proportion of catch of these species is small, it makes it unlikely that this fishery could seriously deplete the population or hinder recovery, meeting the requirements of the SG 80, but not at the SG
Justification 100 level. b If main bycatch species If main bycatch species are outside biologically are outside biologically based limits there are based limits there is a mitigation measures in partial strategy of
place that are expected demonstrably effective to ensure that the mitigation measures in fishery does not hinder place such that the recovery and rebuilding. fishery does not hinder
Guidepost recovery and rebuilding. Met? Not relevant Not relevant
The two main bycatch species are not considered to be outside biologically based limits.
Justification c If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected
to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits
Guidepost or hindering recovery.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 103 of 199
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? Y The status of, horn sharks (Heterodontus francisci) and swell sharks (Cephaloscyllium ventriosum) is poorly known, however, the normal practices for the red rock lobster fishery ensure that the numbers caught of all species will be sufficiently small so as to ensure that the fishery is not causing any of these species to be outside biologically based limits. The sharks are released and the number of other minor species incidentally caught such as cormorants is low according to survey data from captain during 2012/2013 fishing season.
Justification This meets the requirements of the SG 60 level. References M. Ramade and FEDECOOP technician pers. comm. (2015); Ramade et al. (2013, 2014, 2015); Shester (2008) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 104 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that managing and minimizing bycatch. are expected to maintain is expected to maintain the main bycatch species the main bycatch species at levels which are highly at levels which are highly
likely to be within likely to be within biologically based limits, biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their does not hinder their
Guidepost recovery and rebuilding. recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y N From 2012, the cooperatives have been recording bycatch species captured in the observations column of the fishing logbooks. The sampling effort of observed traps has been increasing. The number of sharks (‘main’ species) recorded in fishing season 2014/15 is much lower (26,055 individuals less) than the original data published by Shester (2008). The sharks have no commercial value and are released alive at sea (according to
information from the technicians of the cooperatives). Collecting species level information and releasing sharks alive contributes to the Action Line 1.3, 2.3 and 3.2 of the Lobsters Fishery Management Plan Draft regarding mitigation of the impact in the ecosystem. These measures are part of a partial strategy. This is considered appropriate for the scale of the fishery. SG100 is not met because there is no actual strategy in place for sharks and the
Justification other bycatch species. b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high confidence considered likely to basis for confidence that that the strategy will work, based
work, based on plausible the partial strategy will on information directly about the argument (e.g. general work, based on some fishery and/or species involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with similar about the fishery and/or
Guidepost fisheries/species). species involved. Met? Y Y N
It is likely that these measures work (SG60) based on the low level of bycatch (less than 4%) in this fishery and the level of sampling for the logbooks covers a significant percentage of the fishing effort (higher than 56%). There is objective confidence that the partial strategy will work based on the fact that they are collecting data on the fishery for three fishing seasons.
Justification
c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully.
Guidepost Met? Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 105 of 199
There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations
Data recording for bycatch species is being carried out by the captains in the fishing logbooks, but they still do not note the deposition of the species (retained or discarded alive or dead) nor is there evidence that the sharks are being released alive. Nevertheless, fishermen release by custom and use animals that are not lobsters nor have commercial value. There is some evidence that the partial strategy works (SG80) but not clear evidence
Justification that is being implemented successfully (SG100). d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective.
Guidepost Met? N
There is no strategy in place so SG100 is not reached.
Justification
References Ramade et al. (2013, 2014, 2015); Shester (2008); Vega-Velázquez et al. (2014)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 106 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable
is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main bycatch information are available catch of all bycatch species and species taken by the on the amount of main the consequences for the status of fishery. bycatch species taken by affected populations.
Guidepost the fishery. Met? Y Y N
There is qualitative information on final deposition of shark species bycaught in the fishery (see 2.2.2) and some quantitative information on number of individuals caught. Nevertheless, the quantitative information does not include size/weight, which is essential for determining whether a species is main or minor and also the life history stage being captured.
The Team noted that the reporting format was weak and recommended that logbook information record non-target catch by individual species and record whether such take is retained, discarded (returned to the water), or released alive. The team cautioned the client that for species that are caught in large numbers, and for reassessment under Version 2.0, it is likely to be necessary to present estimates of overall catches by species relative to population estimates of non‐target catch in order for the team to appropriately score species under Principle 2. It is also in the fishery’s interest to demonstrate where species are released alive, such that non‐ target catch is not overestimated, as may be the case under the current recording system.
There is no accurate or verifiable information for all bycatch species. SG100 is not met.
Justification b Information is adequate Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to to broadly understand to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome outcome status with status with respect to status with respect to biologically respect to biologically biologically based limits. based limits with a high degree of
Guidepost based limits certainty. Met? Y N N Information is recorded in the fishing logbooks on bycatch species captured (SG60), sometimes grouped into one category (for example, fish) and number of organisms, but weight is not included, which makes it difficult to estimate volume with respect to the total catch. There is adequate information on the number of sharks and other bycatch species captured but it is not sufficient for estimating outcome status with respect to biologically- based limits because the final status of discarded species is unknown in the case of sharks.
Moreover, this information as well as volume are also unknown for the other minor bycatch species.
SG80 is not met because: (a) information does not provide volume by weight; (b) no information on mortality; (c) not at the species level; (d) unclear which is retained and
Justification which is bycatch.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 107 of 199
Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch c Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to
to support measures to to support a partial support a strategy to manage manage bycatch. strategy to manage main retained species, and evaluate bycatch species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving
Guidepost its objective. Met? Y Y N
Monitoring of bycatch data should be conducted in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities to all bycatch species, and particularly to species considered vulnerable such as sharks. It is also in the fishery’s interest to demonstrate where species are released alive, such that non-target catch is not overestimated, as may be the case under the current recording system.
The technicians of the cooperatives indicated that the reliability of the information from the logbooks is variable and that the captains need to receive more training on their use in order to improve data quality and accuracy. Information about the end use of species is also missing. Thus the Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage
Justification bycatch (SG80) but not for a full strategy. d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of bycatch data is to be collected to detect conducted in sufficient detail to any increase in risk to assess ongoing mortalities to all main bycatch species bycatch species. (e.g., due to changes in
the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the
Guidepost strategy). Met? Y N
There is evidence that the logbooks are being used to record data on bycatch of main bycatch species; therefore it is possible to detect any increase in the risk level for main bycatch species (SG80). More detail data are needed for bycatch species regarding mortality post-capture (SG80 is not met).
Justification References Ramade et al. (2013, 2014, 2015); Shester (2008); OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): By third surveillance, provide accuracy information at the species level on the volume of bycatch species in this fishery and information and evidence of end use of sharks and other bycatch species.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 108 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1
The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Known effects of the The effects of the fishery There is a high degree of certainty fishery are likely to be are known and are highly that the effects of the fishery are
within limits of national likely to be within limits within limits of national and and international of national and international requirements for requirements for international protection of ETP species. protection of ETP requirements for
Guidepost species. protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y Y The traps are deployed into the sea with a line to a buoy that floats at the surface so that the position of the trap can be located later. Potential interactions with this fishing gear detected in other lobster fisheries using traps are marine mammal entanglements with the line or rope. Three marine mammals (one cetacean and two pinniped species), have been identified as ETP species that could have potential interactions with the lobster fishery. The three species on the IUCN Red List are in the “Least concern” category but they are in the “special protection” category of Mexican regulation NOM -059-SEMARNAT-2001. Gray whales (Escrichtius robustus) occur in two lagoons of El Vizcaino Reserve where they breed and calve during the winter months of the northern hemisphere, which coincide with the lobster fishing season. The lagoons are declared “sanctuaries” and UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and fishing is not allowed during the breeding season for these species. Seals (Phoca vitulina) and sea lions (Zalophus californianus) have significant breeding colonies on several islands of the Reserve located in the fishing areas of two cooperatives. FEDECOOP does not report any interactions with these species in the fishing logbooks for the last three fishing seasons. Shester (2008) did not observe any interactions between traps and marine mammals in his study. CONANP staff and the technicians of the cooperatives did not identify any cases of interaction with ETP species during the interviews. There is a high degree of certainty that the effects of fishing on ETP species will be within limits of national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species and thus
Justification the first elements of SG 60, 80 and 100 are met. b Known direct effects are Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts to unacceptable impacts to significant detrimental direct ETP species. ETP species. effects of the fishery on ETP
Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 109 of 199
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
Monitoring reports and annual surveys of gray whales (E. robustus) carried out by CONANP over 20 years have identified an increase in the breeding cetacean population in the coastal lagoons of the Reserve with records on approximately 12,000 whale calves. The draft of the lobster management plan calls for an assessment of the impact of the fishery on whales, sea lions and seals but there have been no progress reports on the implementation of these measures. INAPESCA records bycatch data on the mass sampling forms, specifically interactions with marine mammals, but no report was made available to the team. There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects
Justification of the fishery on ETP species (SG80) are highly unlikely to create unacceptable impacts. c
Indirect effects have There is a high degree of been considered and are confidence that there are no thought to be unlikely to significant detrimental indirect create unacceptable effects of the fishery on ETP
Guidepost impacts. species. Met? Y Y
There is no information on an assessment of the impacts of the fishery on ETP species, as set forth in the management plan for the fishery. Therefore, although the capture of ETP species in this fishery is negligible and there are no records of mortality or any evidence of whale or pinniped deaths due to interaction with this fishery (for example, cords wrapped
around animals that are found dead), the team considers that additional information would be relevant to fully support that there is no significant direct detrimental effect on ETP species (SG80).
Justification References SCS (2012); (Vega-Velázquez et al. 2014) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 110 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive strategy place that minimise place for managing the in place for managing the fishery’s mortality of ETP species, fishery’s impact on ETP impact on ETP species, including and are expected to be species, including measures to minimise mortality, highly likely to achieve measures to minimise which is designed to achieve national and mortality, which is above national and international
international designed to be highly requirements for the protection of requirements for the likely to achieve national ETP species. protection of ETP and international species. requirements for the
Guidepost protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y Y Mexico is a party to several international conventions and commissions and endorses several international agreements that provide a framework for the protection of national fauna and flora, including CITES and CMS. The three ETP species are included in NOM-059- SEMARNAT-2010. The declaration of El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve includes measures for the protection of gray whales and pinnipeds, and two lagoons that are important for gray whale reproduction have been declared World Heritage Sites by UNESCO. The lobster fishery management plan considers the impacts of the fisheries on these ETP species and proposes impact assessments for taking measures. There are measures and a partial strategy for minimizing impact in the form of national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species (SG80).
The fishery has no known impact on ETP species and there is a strategy that joins the Nom 059 objectives and the Vizcaino management plan with a clear objective and with preventative measures in place during the breeding season of grey whales and to protect colonies of pinnipeds. The SG100 is met.
Justification b The measures are There is an objective The strategy is mainly based on considered likely to basis for confidence that information directly about the
work, based on plausible the strategy will work, fishery and/or species involved, argument (e.g. general based on information and a quantitative analysis experience, theory or directly about the fishery supports high confidence that the comparison with similar and/or the species strategy will work.
Guidepost fisheries/species). involved. Met? Y Y Y
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 111 of 199
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species.
During the gray whale breeding season from December to March, there is an increase in the concentration of individuals of this species in the waterways of the Ojo de Liebre and San Ignacio lagoons every year. For this reason, lobster fishing is not permitted during this season as an established measure to prevent potential interactions of whales and fishing gear. This measure is part of a broader strategy that includes the regulations of the Vizcaino Reserve management program and the declaration of both lagoons as sanctuaries. Similarly, the islands with pinniped colonies are in the core zone of the Reserve.
The monitoring of gray whales in the Reserve shows an increase in individuals in this population of marine mammals. One information source on bycatch is the fishing logbook records of the FEDECOOP cooperatives, which do not record any interaction with marine
mammals, at least for the last three fishing seasons. There is an objective basis for confidence that this partial strategy is working based on information from CONANP personnel (SG60) and the logbooks (SG80). Elements of a strategy are present in the Management Plan of Vizcaino Reserve and supported by the annual monitoring program. SG100 is met.
Justification c There is evidence that There is clear evidence that the the strategy is being strategy is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully.
Guidepost Met? Y N
Since the 2012/13 season, the cooperatives have been taking data on bycatch species in the fishing logbooks. In the reports submitted by FEDECOOP, there are no records of any ETP species. There is evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully (SG80). The effectiveness of the area is currently being evaluated and the management program updated to provide information of the level of success of the implementation of the
Justification strategies in Vizcaino Reserve. d There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.
Guidepost Met? N The gray whale monitoring program is not designed to determine whether the
conservation objectives are being met (Rivera 2010), but the strategy (i.e. seasonal closures in Vizcaino) does appear to be achieving an absence of interactions between whales and fishers/lobster gear.Detailed information on pinnipeds interaction with red rock Lobster fishery was not provided for this re-assessment.
Justification
References INE (2000) ;Rivera 2010; Vega et al. (2014)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 112 of 199
The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 113 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3
Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is sufficient Sufficient information is Information is sufficient to
to qualitatively estimate available to allow fishery quantitatively estimate outcome the fishery related related mortality and the status of ETP species with a high mortality of ETP species. impact of fishing to be degree of certainty. quantitatively estimated
Guidepost for ETP species. Met? Y Y Y This fishery does not have records on mortality or other interactions with ETP species occurring in the area at this time, according to the information available. At the level of
negligible interaction of ETP species with the red rock Lobster fishery, the information is considered sufficient for quantitatively estimating the impact of the lobster fishery during the fishing season. There are no recent records for the Reserve from CONANP staff, FEDECOOP technicians and representatives, or the fishing logbooks showing the occurrence of any interactions. Shester (2008) did not record any interactions in his
Justification ecosystem impact study. b Information is adequate Information is sufficient Accurate and verifiable
to broadly understand to determine whether information is available on the the impact of the fishery the fishery may be a magnitude of all impacts, on ETP species. threat to protection and mortalities and injuries and the recovery of the ETP consequences for the status of
Guidepost species. ETP species. Met? Y Y Y
The team agreed that the information available on the interaction of the lobster fishery with ETP species (gray whales, seals and sea lions) is adequate and sufficient to determine
whether the fishery could pose a threat. There are no recent records for the Reserve from CONANP staff, FEDECOOP technicians and representatives, or the fishing logbooks showing the occurrence of any interactions. Shester (2008) did not record any interactions in his ecosystem impact study. The information is accurate and testable at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery’s impact on the status of ETP species.
Justification There are no records of mortality or injuries. c Information is adequate Information is sufficient Information is adequate to to support measures to to measure trends and support a comprehensive strategy
manage the impacts on support a full strategy to to manage impacts, minimize ETP species. manage impacts on ETP mortality and injury of ETP species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a
Guidepost strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 114 of 199
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. The Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático (National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change) created the Coordination of Marine Mammal Research and Conservation based in Ensenada, BC, in order to provide a scientific basis for decision-making regarding the management and conservation of cetaceans and pinnipeds. As mentioned above, the impact of this fishery on marine mammals present in the area is negligible in terms of the quantity of records available from fishing logbooks. Shester (2008) did not record any cases of interaction and mentioned only one anecdotal case from his interviews that could not be confirmed. Therefore the team considers that the information is adequate to support the measures for managing this impact. However, the draft lobster management plan stipulates that there should be an assessment of the impact of the fishery on pinnipeds and whales, but there is no information available on the progress of these studies. CONANP is updating the management program for the Reserve
and revising the management strategies and policies. This information was not in hand at the time of the assessment, therefore the team feels that the information available is not sufficient to measure trends and support a complete strategy to manage the impact on ETP species. The monitoring programs are not designed to meet the conservation objectives. For pinnipeds it was not possible to find information about monitoring
Justification programs. References Carabias et al. (2010)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 115 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly There is evidence that the fishery
reduce habitat structure unlikely to reduce habitat is highly unlikely to reduce habitat and function to a point structure and function to structure and function to a point where there would be a point where there where there would be serious or serious or irreversible would be serious or irreversible harm.
Guidepost harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Trap fishing has little physical impact on benthic environments. Eno et al. (2001) described very few direct impacts to benthic habitats associated with the use of traps. This has been studied in other fisheries such as the Western Australian Rock Lobster Fishery (SCS 2012). In the lobster fishery of Baja California, Shester (2008) conducted studies to evaluate the impact of traps on the habitat and concluded that traps are “highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible
harm” (SG80). There is practically no physical damage and some algae are ripped off the bottom when the trap is pulled up, but these recover rapidly; the bottom is covered with algae and some gorgonian corals. Ghost fishing is not considered a concern as the traps have biodegradable staples to limit their usable life span if they are lost or abandoned at sea. Subsequent studies have not been implemented to evaluate the current status of the
Justification habitat.
References Eno et al. (2001); SCS (2012); Shester (2008)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 116 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for
place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that managing the impact of the are expected to achieve is expected to achieve fishery on habitat types. the Habitat Outcome 80 the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. level of performance or
Guidepost above. Met? Y Y Y
Based on the information about the nature and extend of the fishery and the empirical evidence of fishing gear (trap) impacts on habitat (Shester 2008), a strategy would not be deemed necessary for this fishery. However there are several management measures in place to serve multiple purposes (resource conservation, effort control, etc.) that also provide direct protection to habitat. These measures include trap limits, controlled access,
Justification and a prohibition on non-trap gear. b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high confidence considered likely to basis for confidence that that the strategy will work, based
work, based on plausible the partial strategy will on information directly about the argument (e.g. general work, based on fishery and/or habitats involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with similar about the fishery and/or
Guidepost fisheries/habitats). habitats involved. Met? Y Y Y
The traps are weighted to prevent their battering or being moved along the bottom. Since 2007, it has been mandatory for the traps to have biodegradable staples to limit their usable life span if they are lost or abandoned at sea; they fall apart and cease catching fish, thereby preventing ghost fishing. These measures are easy to apply, therefore there is some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work.
Justification c
There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully.
Guidepost Met? Y N
There is evidence that this partial strategy is being implemented because all the traps are required (amendment to the NOM-006-PESC-1993) to have biodegradable staples and there are controls on the fishing effort and number of traps that can be used (See section 3.3.5). Further clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully has not been provided to the assessment team.
Justification
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 117 of 199
There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types
d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.
Guidepost Met? Y
There are some evidence that the management measures in place (i.e. trap limits, controlled access, and a prohibition on non-trap gear) are achieving its objective.
Justification
References Shester (2008); DOF (2009)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 118 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is basic The nature, distribution The distribution of habitat types is understanding of the and vulnerability of all known over their range, with
types and distribution of main habitat types in the particular attention to the main habitats in the area fishery are known at a occurrence of vulnerable habitat of the fishery. level of detail relevant to types. the scale and intensity of
Guidepost the fishery. Met? Y Y N The study conducted by Shester (2008) does not cover the whole range of the fishing area
to provide information on the nature and distribution of all main habitat types. However there is more than basic information available at the level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery, because rocky reef and kelp forest ecosystem are known about habitat along the central coast from Shester (2008) and other studies. There is sufficient data from Shester’s and other studies (cited in 2.4.1) to allow the nature of the impacts of
Justification the fishery on habitat types to be identified. b Information is adequate Sufficient data are The physical impacts of the gear to broadly understand available to allow the on the habitat types have been the nature of the main nature of the impacts of quantified fully. impacts of gear use on the fishery on habitat the main habitats, types to be identified and including spatial overlap there is reliable
of habitat with fishing information on the gear. spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of
Guidepost use of the fishing gear. Met? Y Y N
Traps fisheries are generally considered to have slight impacts on the habitat. Shester
(2008) conducted studies to evaluate the impact of traps on the main habitats of the red rock lobster fishery in the UoC. The spatial scale of any impact is considered to be small and restricted to concessions which define the geographic limits of fishing areas. There is also reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear (SG80). Nevertheless, Shester’s studies are a sample of the habitats of red rock
Justification lobster and the physical impact of the traps on the habitats have been not quantify fully. c Sufficient data continue Changes in habitat distributions to be collected to detect over time are measured. 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
Guidepost the measures). Met? Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 119 of 199
Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types
There is no plan to continue collecting data to detect any increase in risk but there is very low likelihood that the risk is going to increase due to the fishing operation or any other factor. It is therefore inferred that the intent of the SG80 is met. The Vizcaino Reserve management program states that studies of habitats and monitoring will be conducted but progress on that was not provided to the team. If this were done,
Justification there would be the potential to meet the SG 100. References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 120 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1
The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly There is evidence that the fishery disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the is highly unlikely to disrupt the key
underlying ecosystem key elements underlying elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to ecosystem structure and structure and function to a point a point where there function to a point where where there would be a serious or would be a serious or there would be a serious irreversible harm.
Guidepost irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Direct removal of the targeted resource is the only major effect of the fishery on the ecosystem. Due to the known harvest rate, the impact of lobster removals on the ecosystem structure and function, as well as community composition and biodiversity, is considered low. An analysis of existing information suggests that the fishery has very low ecosystem impacts (Shester 2008), there is a lack of hard evidence on the issue, so the assessment
Justification team was unable to justify a higher score. References Ramade et al. (2013); (Shester 2008), OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 121 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy that consists of place, if necessary. in place, if necessary. a plan, in place.
Guidepost Met? Y Y N Most of the fishery is carried out within El Vizcaino Reserve. This protected area has a management program that includes regulation measures for lobster fishing activities and their impact. The lobster fishery also has its draft management plan with established measures and the CNP and NOM 003 regulate the fishery. The team feels that there is a partial strategy in place which includes restricting number of traps, characteristics of traps (measures and use of biodegradable staples), limit effort, minimum size, and others. It is
also a general goal of the LGPAS to set the basis for the protection and restoration of ecosystems where fisheries take place. To this end, permits and concessions introduce binding requirements to the fishers to conduct their activities under specific actions to protect and restore the ecosystem (Vega 2006). There is no strategy that consists of a plan that assures the fishery does not pose a serious risk or irreversible harm to the structure
Justification and function of the ecosystem, therefore SG100 is not met. b The measures take into The partial strategy takes The strategy, which consists of a account potential into account available plan, contains measures to impacts of the fishery on information and is address all main impacts of the key elements of the expected to restrain fishery on the ecosystem, and at ecosystem. impacts of the fishery on least some of these measures are the ecosystem so as to in place. The plan and measures achieve the Ecosystem are based on well-understood Outcome 80 level of functional relationships between performance. the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.
This plan provides for
development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or
Guidepost irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 122 of 199
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function
The Vizcaino Reserve management program and the updating of its measures and regulations initiated in 2015 take the available information into account, and these are expected to restrict the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem, i.e. fishing is prohibited during the Grey Whale breeding season. Any fishing activity done in the Reserve should follow an environmental impact assessment procedure. Similarly, the new General Fishing Law requires consideration of the fishery’s impact on the ecosystem in the development of its management plans and the General Law for Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection also includes regulations regarding ecosystem impact that has to be taken into consideration for protected areas. CNP and NOM-006-PESCA-1993 regulate lobster catch in collaboration with the cooperative management system ensuring that there is a
sustainable population (i.e. Information is collected on the landing and size of the lobsters to ensure that they meet size regulations, and fishery effort is restrained accordingly and catch and bycatch data are being collecting in logbooks by captains). Bait as sardines are regulated by a Management Plan. These legal instruments comprises a partial strategy that takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery
Justification on the ecosystem (SG80). c The measures are The partial strategy is The measures are considered considered likely to considered likely to work, likely to work based on prior
work, based on plausible based on plausible experience, plausible argument or argument (e.g., general argument (e.g., general information directly from the experience, theory or experience, theory or fishery/ecosystems involved. comparison with similar comparison with similar
Guidepost fisheries/ecosystems). fisheries/ecosystems). Met? Y Y N
The management measures and policies in the Vizcaino Reserve management program are now being updated. A pilot project of protected area management effectiveness has started using standardized international methodology (IUCN) for several protected areas in Northeastern Mexico. This methodology uses a standard with criteria and indicators to assess how well protected areas are being managed. Outcomes include assessment of the extend to which conservation and management objectives have been achieved, level of implementation of management programs, among others. Results will be available in the next three years. The Coops are collecting information of the fishery (i.e. landings and logbooks) that are contributing to the objectives of the Lobster Fishery Management Plan (draft), NOM-006- PESCA-1993 and CNP. Therefore, the updated program of Vizcaino Reserve and the implementation of other measures in the fishery are integrated into a partial strategy that is considered likely to
Justification work (SG80). d There is some evidence There is evidence that the
that the measures measures are being implemented comprising the partial successfully. strategy are being implemented
Guidepost successfully. Met? Y N
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 123 of 199
There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function
An assessment of management in El Vizcaino Reserve done as a doctoral dissertation rated its management in general as average. The assessment of the effectiveness of the protected area underway by CONANP with support from GIZ will be evidence that the measures are being implemented. Additionally, as mentioned above, there is evidence that Coops are implementing measures of a partial strategy (i.e. monitoring minimum size of sardine used as bait, collecting data of non-target species, regulations of lobster fishery according to NOM-006- PESCA-1993 and CNP (2012)).
Justification DOF. 1988. Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección del Ambiente; DOF (2012c); Vega-Velázquez et al. 2015). References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 124 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is adequate Information is adequate to identify the key to broadly understand elements of the the key elements of the
ecosystem (e.g., trophic ecosystem. structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and
Guidepost biodiversity). Met? Y Y
There are numerous studies about the ecosystem of the California Current and its main elements as well as studies on the trophic relationships of the lobster and the different stages of its life cycle that are listed in SCS 2011. Some of them are cited in References in this document and other have been conducted by academic institutions including national CICIMAR, CIBNOR, CICESE, the Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Biológicas and foreign
Justification universities like Stanford University, etc. b Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between the fishery on these key fishery on these key fishery and these ecosystem
ecosystem elements can ecosystem elements can elements can be inferred from be inferred from existing be inferred from existing existing information, and have information, and have information and some been investigated. not been investigated in have been investigated in
Guidepost detail. detail. Met? Y Y N
Shester studied the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem and the impact is also mentioned in the lobster stock assessment document and the fishery management plan. The Reserve’s management program also considers the impacts for imposing measures.
Justification c The main functions of the The impacts of the fishery on
Components (i.e., target, target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP Bycatch, Retained and species are identified and the ETP species and Habitats) main functions of these in the ecosystem are Components in the ecosystem are
Guidepost known. understood. Met? Y N
The main functions of the components of the ecosystem are known and there is better information for retained species (including bait), bycatch and ETP species; however, there is still a need to know about the status of the species when captured and/or released or discarded and the impact of this on the populations, particularly for cormorants and sharks.
Justification
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 125 of 199
PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem d Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available available on the impacts on the impacts of the fishery on
of the fishery on these the Components and elements to Components to allow allow the main consequences for some of the main the ecosystem to be inferred. consequences for the
Guidepost ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y N
Similarly, although there is information available that can be used to infer the main consequences for the ecosystem, the updating of the Vizcaino Reserve management program will contribute sufficient information.
Justification e Sufficient data continue Information is sufficient to to be collected to detect support the development of any increase in risk level strategies to manage ecosystem (e.g., due to changes in impacts.
the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the
Guidepost measures). Met? Y N
There is monitoring of some elements of the ecosystem, such as lobsters, bycatch species and gray whales. There are studies on several of these components and the Reserve’s management program establishes that monitoring should be implemented. Information is not sufficient to support the development of strategy to manage ecosystem impacts.
Justification
References SCS (2011); Shester (2008)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 126 of 199
6.4.3. Principal 3 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1
The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national legal national legal system and national legal system system and binding procedures organised and effective and a framework for governing cooperation with other cooperation with other cooperation with other parties which delivers
parties, where necessary, parties, where management outcomes consistent to deliver management necessary, to deliver with MSC Principles 1 and 2. outcomes consistent with management outcomes MSC Principles 1 and 2. consistent with MSC
Guidepost Principles 1 and 2 Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 127 of 199
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 PI 3.1.1 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.
At the national level, the specific instrument for Mexican fisheries legislation is the LGPAS that provides guidelines for the regulation of fisheries. Linked to this enabling law are fisheries regulations and NOMs that define management measures. Article 1.II of the LPGAS notes that one objective is to establish and define the principles to manage, promote and regulate fisheries and aquaculture to ensure the sustainable use of the resources, taking into consideration social, technological, productive, biological and environmental considerations; it also establishes “the basis for the exercise of those attributions of the federation, states and municipalities, under the overarching principles of concurrence and with the participation of fishers … with the purpose of promoting the integral and sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture”. Article 1.IX of LPGAS specifically deals with the need to consider other elements of the ecosystem (e.g. ecosystem protection as defined in the Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente). This law establishes “the basis for the ordination, conservation, protection, repopulation and sustainable utilization of fisheries and aquaculture resources, as well as the protection and rehabilitation of those ecosystems in which these resources are”. The Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization (Ley Federal sobre Metrología y Normalización; LFMN) (DOF 2015) established the integration of Official Mexican Norms (Norms/NOMs). The Norms, which are obligatory (legally binding), and are technical regulations that control a diverse range of production processes including sectors such as manufacturing through to fisheries. In Article 40 the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization establishes that a Norm “regulates procedures to assure the preservation of natural resources […] and if necessary to seek preferential right to access, utilization and benefit of fisheries resources to indigenous communities and people […] in those places that they occupy and inhabit.” The National Fisheries Chart (Carta Nacional Pesquera, CNP). The CNP is another binding instrument for the fisheries authorities’ decision-making process. This Chart includes the diagnosis and the integral assessment of a fishery, fisheries and conservation indicators, as well as recommendations by the National Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INAPESCA), for the management of the fisheries that are included in the CNP.
The conjunction of the law, the NOMs and the CNP, added to the development of tools specified in the law, such as management plans, represent an effective and binding national legal system in which there is effective cooperation with other parties to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. This scoring issue meets
Justification the standard at SG100.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 128 of 199
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 PI 3.1.1 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. b The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is incorporates or is subject incorporates or subject by law to a subject by law to a by law to a transparent transparent mechanism for the mechanism for the mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is resolution of legal resolution of legal appropriate to the context of the disputes arising within disputes which is fishery and has been tested and
the system. considered to be proven to be effective. effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the
Guidepost context of the fishery. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 129 of 199
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 PI 3.1.1 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.
At the national level, there is a full scale judicial system in which sanctions by authorities to particulars for non-compliances with the law and its subsidiaries have to meet the premises in the “Ley Federal de Procedimiento Administrativo” (Federal Law of Administrative Procedure). This law outlines the definition of administrative actions by the federal government, and how these actions can be review and nullified when there is a legal dispute (DOF 1994). The LGPAS outlines appeal mechanisms for administrative proceedings that are issued with the application of corresponding infractions and legal sanctions for the violations of regulations in the LGPAS. Under Article 149, a fishery resource user can contest a final resolution that was reached according to administrative procedures defined in the application of the Law. Details about how to proceed in the development of a dispute under this Article of the LGPAS are regulated and defined in the Federal Law for Administrative Procedures. Section V of the General Law for the Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente, LGEEPA), describes specifications for Environment Impact Assessments that are put in place when fishing activities threaten the preservation of one or more aquatic species. Chapters IV, V and VI outline the corresponding legal procedures for administrative sanctions, resolutions reviews, and federal order offenses (DOF 1988). At the SG 80 there is evidence that a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes exists in the specifications on LGPAS, articles 127-130, that specify how from sanctions at field fisheries officers have to summit the case to the Public Ministry, which is an independent body of the judiciary and the executive, which is responsible for investigating the offenses based on evidence. The current legal framework is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery because the principles and mechanism establish in LGPAS in Chapter I related with the distribution of competences (or power articles 6 to 10), Chapter II of Coordination (articles 11 and 12), and Chapter III of Concurrence (articles 13 to 16). This group of articles explain the distribution of responsibilities and capacity of action at Federal, State and Municipal level for dealing with fishery issues.
The concluded that the management system is subject by law to transparent mechanisms for the resolution of legal disputes. The system is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery meeting the standard at SG80. However, there is no evidence that the system has been tested, or that its
Justification effectiveness has been evaluated. Therefore the SG 100 is not met.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 130 of 199
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 PI 3.1.1 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. d The management system The management system The management system has a has a mechanism to has a mechanism to mechanism to formally commit to generally respect the observe the legal rights the legal rights created explicitly legal rights created created explicitly or or established by custom of explicitly or established established by custom of people dependent on fishing for by custom of people people dependent on food and livelihood in a manner
dependent on fishing for fishing for food or consistent with the objectives of food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner MSC Principles 1 and 2. manner consistent with consistent with the the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC
Guidepost Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)
The LGPAS sets the basis to the development of fisheries in Mexico under the principle of sustainability and accounting for other biological, environmental and socio-economic factors. For example, article 72 of the LGPAS allows fishing without permits when fishing for food and livelihood by people that lives at the coast. This article 72 prohibits the selling of the product that was fished for food and livelihood and without permit. The rights for indigenous peoples to fish as food and for cultural rituals are given priority and special considerations and are recognized and allowed (OECD 2013). This is in particular determined in the Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization which establishes that a Norm “regulates procedures to assure the preservation of natural resources […] and if necessary to seek preferential right to access, utilization and benefit of fisheries resources to indigenous communities and people […] in those places that they occupy and inhabit.”. It is therefore concluded that the management system has mechanisms committed to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2
Justification and meets the standard at SG100. DOF. 1988. Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección del Ambiente. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 28 de enero de 1988. DOF. 1994. Ley Federal de Procedimientos Administrativos. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 4 de agosto de 1994. DOF. 2007. Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Diario Oficial de la Federación. References Diario Oficial de la Federación. 24 de Julio de 2007. DOF 2015. Ley Federal sobre Metrología y Normalización. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 18 de Diciembre de 2015. OECD Review of Fisheries: Policies and Summary Statistics 2013 (DOI:10.1787/rev_fish- 2013-en)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 131 of 199
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 PI 3.1.1 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 132 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals individuals involved in individuals involved in involved in the management the management the management process process have been identified. process have been have been identified. Functions, roles and identified. Functions, Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly
roles and responsibilities responsibilities are defined and well understood for are generally explicitly defined and all areas of responsibility and understood. well understood for key interaction. areas of responsibility
Guidepost and interaction. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y) Roles and responsibilities of organizations within the Mexican governance framework relevant to fisheries are described in Principle 3 background to this report. Briefly, SAGARPA is in charge of administering fisheries and aquaculture legislation. CONAPESCA is an administrative entity of SAGARPA responsible for management, coordination and policy development related to the sustainable use and exploitation of fisheries and aquatic resources. CONAPESCA’s responsibilities include enforcement, issuing quota and permitting. INAPESCA is responsible providing scientific advice. SEMARNAT is the federal agency responsible for promoting the protection, restoration and conservation of ecosystems and natural resources and environmental goods and services. In the LGPAS, the Second Title on the Responsibilities and Concurrence on matters of Fishing and Aquaculture, the roles and responsibilities of the different agencies in the fisheries management system are described. This section establishes that coordination with other Federal Secretaries, the specifications in the Organic Law of the Federal Public Administration have to be followed. The role of SEMARNAT and the SEMAR (the Navy) are described to provide support in activities of surveillance, enforcement and in the general fisheries legal system. Coordination with other Federal, State and Municipal agencies is also described in this section. The Advisory Committee for the Normalization of Agricultural Food Production (Consejo Consultivo para la Normalización Agroalimentaria) is an advisor committee for SAGARPA with the objective to propose, compile, review, approve, modified, cancel, publish and broadcast Mexican official norms related with the food production based on agriculture, livestock, aquaculture and fisheries. In the case of regulations for aquaculture and fisheries, the Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing is in charge of this sector (DOF 2012b). The agencies involved in management processes are identified, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all main areas of responsibility meeting the
Justification requirements at SG100.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 133 of 199
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties b The management system The management system The management system includes includes consultation includes consultation consultation processes that processes that obtain processes that regularly regularly seek and accept relevant relevant information seek and accept relevant information, including local from the main affected information, including knowledge. The management
parties, including local local knowledge. The system demonstrates knowledge, to inform management system consideration of the information the management demonstrates and explains how it is used or not system. consideration of the used.
Guidepost information obtained. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
At the national level, formalized consultative procedures are in place for the establishment of NOMs that are explicitly defined in Article 44 of LFMN. These processes include Comites Consultivos Nacionales de Normalización (CCNN, National Consulting Normalization Committees). The advisory Committee for the Normalization of Agricultural Food Production (Consejo Consultivo para la Normalización Agroalimentaria) is an advisor committee for SAGARPA, whose objective is to propose, compile, review, approve, modify, cancel, publish and broadcast Mexican official norms related with the food production based on agriculture, livestock, aquaculture and fisheries. For fisheries the CCNN is known as the Comité Consultivo Nacional de Normalización de Pesca Responsable and includes a diverse composite of government agency staff, as well as representatives from the net manufacturing industry, marine equipment and cables industry and academia. Other national normalization organizations may also submit drafts to CCNNs for consideration and integration into NOMs. A consultation process exists for stakeholders, including on- going processes at the municipal, regional and national levels and ad hoc consultation for specific measures. Lower level examples of consultation, above the fishery-specific level include the guidelines in the LGPAS to the definition of consultation processes that take place through the National Council for Fisheries and Aquaculture “Consejo Nacional de Pesca y Acuacultura” (CNPA,), and the State Councils for Fisheries and Aquaculture “Consejos Estatales de Pesca y Acuacultura”. The CNPA is an inter-sectorial forum for the support, coordination, consultation and assistance for the making of fisheries management decisions chaired by SAGARPA. The CNAP includes representatives from the Federal regulatory organizations, the social sector, and the fisheries and aquaculture sector. The national and state Councils are responsible for the definition of management objectives of Fisheries Management Plans (DOF 2012).
The evidence indicates that the management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system has the mechanisms to consider information and therefore meets the requirements at SG80. The team didn’t receive clear evidence of how the information is
Justification used or not and cannot meet the requirement at SG100. c The consultation process The consultation process provides
provides opportunity for opportunity and encouragement all interested and for all interested and affected affected parties to be parties to be involved, and involved. facilitates their effective
Guidepost engagement.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 134 of 199
The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? (Y) (Y)
The CNPA and CEPA function as inter-institutional forums to include members from different government agencies, industry groups and academia. The participants propose and inform INAPESCA the objectives of the fishery to be included in a fishery management plan (DOF 2012). During the structuring of a management plan INAPESCA holds a series Public Consultation Meetings to provide a space for public participation in the planning. This consultation processes facilitates the participation of stakeholders to guarantee grounds to reach agreements on how to achieve the goal to conduct responsible management of the fishery. The Sub-committee of Responsible Fishing also facilitates the participation of stakeholders to propose, compile, review, approve and publish Mexican official norms related to fisheries. Stakeholders include members from the government, industry, productive, academic, non-government, services and consumer sectors (DOF 2012b). Therefore the SG80 is met. Public Consultation processes encourage and facilitate active engagement of stakeholders through regular meetings of the committees involved in drafting Norms, the CNP and Management plans before they are published in the final version. These conditions meet
Justification the requirement at SG 100. References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 135 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3
The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Long-term objectives to Clear long-term Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, objectives that guide guide decision-making, consistent consistent with the MSC decision-making, with MSC Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria consistent with MSC and the precautionary approach,
and the precautionary Principles and Criteria are explicit within and required by approach, are implicit and the precautionary management policy. within management approach are explicit policy within management
Guidepost policy. Met? (Y/N/Partial) (Y/N/Partial) (Y/N/Partial) The LGPAS incorporates clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach. LGPAS defines one of its prime objectives as establishing the basis for the ordination, conservation, protection, repopulation and sustainable utilization of fisheries and aquaculture resources, as well as the protection and rehabilitation of the supporting ecosystems. The LGPAS also establishes that for the conservation and protection of fishery resources and ecosystems, the Authority must adopt the precautionary approach. Overall, there are clear, explicit objectives incorporating the precautionary approach
Justification required by management policy meeting the requirements at SG 100. References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 136 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.4
The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The management system The management system The management system provides provides for incentives provides for incentives for incentives that are consistent that are consistent with that are consistent with with achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and
expressed by MSC expressed by MSC 2, and explicitly considers Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2, and incentives in a regular review of seeks to ensure that management policy or procedures perverse incentives do to ensure they do not contribute
Guidepost not arise. to unsustainable fishing practices. Met? (Y) (Y) (N) At the national level, the concession regime granting exclusive rights for 20 years reduces the discretionary powers of the authorities while offering fishers greater stability and security for investment. Individual catch rights may or may not be established but it is a decision made in coordination with the authorities after consensus about the pertinence of such measures. There are no subsidies other than the widespread subsidy that discounts the cost of fuel for primary producers (i.e. agriculture and fisheries) that is part of the Mexican Government supported “Program for the sustainable utilization of natural resources for primary production (“Programa de Uso Sustentable de Recursos Naturales para la Produccion Primaria”) that includes a component for the sustainable use of fisheries, fishery resources and aquaculture. Overall it was concluded that the management system provides for incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC principles 1 and 2 avoiding the insertion of perverse incentives in the fishery. This meets the requirement at SG80. There is however no evidence that there is explicit consideration of incentives in a regular
Justification review of management policy as required by SG 100.
References [List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 137 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1
The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term objectives, achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving which are demonstrably
expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed consistent with achieving the Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 and outcomes expressed by MSC’s implicit within the 2, are explicit within the Principles 1 and 2, are explicit fishery’s management fishery’s management within the fishery’s management
Guidepost system system. system. Met? (Y) (Y) (N) Although the management plan has not been approved and adopted, the general long term goal of the fishery is aligned with the main goal of the LGPAS and has been defined as “to guarantee the sustainable exploitation of the resource, maintaining the reproductive capacity at a level that allows enough annual recruitment to the fishery” (Vega 2006). It is also a general goal of the LGPAS to set the basis for the protection and restoration of ecosystems where fisheries take place. To this end, permits and concessions introduce binding requirements to the fishers to conduct their activities under specific actions to protect and restore the ecosystem (Vega 2006). Short term objectives are multiple and have been expressed in different documents depending on the specific subject of interest. One regular document describing short term objectives is the Annual Operative Program of
the Regional Centre of INAPESCA in La Paz which aims to gather critical information to inform management decisions including the computation of reference points (e.g. Vega 2009). These short and long term objectives are consistent with achieving outcomes expressed in Principles 1 and 2 and are explicit in the fisheries management system. This meets the requirements at SG80. The objectives however are disperse and not all are
Justification clearly consolidated and measurable, therefore the standard at SG100 is not met.
References Vega (2006)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 138 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are some decision- There are established
making processes in decision-making place that result in processes that result in measures and strategies measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- to achieve the fishery-
Guidepost specific objectives. specific objectives. Met? (Y) (Y) The decision making process in the red rock lobster fishery is well established as a rights based system and is consistent with the definitions in the LGPAS (see background for P3 for details about the Baja California lobster fishery rights based management system). The Baja California Sur State Lobster Sub-committee meets every year to present the results of
the year’s assessment and recommendations for the following fishing season. Although there are no explicit guidelines to direct the decision making process, the evidence indicates that the meetings have been successful to reach agreements on relevant issues such as sensitive modifications to be included in the update of the CNP and the implementation of a surveillance and compliance program (e.g. Minutes of the Technical
Justification Meeting of 2007). This meets the standard at SG80. b Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes processes respond to processes respond to respond to all issues identified in serious issues identified serious and other relevant research, monitoring, in relevant research, important issues evaluation and consultation, in a monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant transparent, timely and adaptive and consultation, in a research, monitoring, manner and take account of the transparent, timely and evaluation and wider implications of decisions.
adaptive manner and consultation, in a take some account of transparent, timely and the wider implications of adaptive manner and decisions. take account of the wider
Guidepost implications of decisions. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)
As described in scoring issue a, the authorities and members of the FEDECOOP assemble every year for Technical Meetings of the Lobster Sub-committee to discuss different aspects about the immediate management needs. This approach allows the system to respond timely and in adaptive manner to all issues identified by research or by direct observation of the users by means of an open and transparent process where the
Justification implications of decisions are discussed. This meets the requirements at SG100. c
Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best
Guidepost available information. Met? (Y)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 139 of 199
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment.
The fishery uses several tools to protect recruitment and avoid overfishing, such as the season closure, minimum length, the prohibition of catching egg-bearing females and the approach of exclusive user territorial rights. This in itself represents a set of precautionary
decisions that have been embedded in the management system for many years. A more specific example is the decision to set the minimum length at a larger size than the observed size at maturity, which protects a fraction of the population called “pre-recruits” that are able to reproduce and are not vulnerable to the fishery. In this way, the decision- making process is considered to use the precautionary approach based on the best
Justification available information meeting the requirement at SG80. d Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all interested fishery performance and performance and stakeholders provides management action is management action is comprehensive information on generally available on available on request, and fishery performance and request to stakeholders. explanations are management actions and provided for any actions describes how the management or lack of action system responded to findings and associated with findings relevant recommendations
and relevant emerging from research, recommendations monitoring, evaluation and review emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation
Guidepost and review activity. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)
Reporting of all management actions and decisions ranges from the elaboration of Minutes that are reported to all participants of the Technical Meeting, to the publication in the Official Gazette of major decisions such as changes in the NOM or in the CNP, changes in the length or distribution of the season closure and the publication or update of Management Plans (DOF 1993; DOF 2007; DOF 2009; DOF 2014; DOF 2015). This meets the standard at SG100.
Justification e Although the The management system The management system or management authority or fishery is attempting fishery acts proactively to avoid or fishery may be subject to comply in a timely legal disputes or rapidly to continuing court fashion with judicial implements judicial decisions challenges, it is not decisions arising from any arising from legal challenges. indicating a disrespect or legal challenges. defiance of the law by
repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the
Guidepost fishery. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 140 of 199
The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment.
High value of the fishery, territorial exclusive rights, surveillance and compliance within the cooperatives, verification of size and female reproductive state, sanctions from the cooperative, external infractors.
Justification
References DOF (1993); DOF (2007); DOF (2009); DOF (2014); DOF (2015)
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 141 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive monitoring, surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has control and surveillance system exist, are implemented been implemented in the has been implemented in the
in the fishery under fishery under assessment fishery under assessment and has assessment and there is and has demonstrated an demonstrated a consistent ability a reasonable expectation ability to enforce relevant to enforce relevant management that they are effective. management measures, measures, strategies and/or rules.
Guidepost strategies and/or rules. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y) The concession regime defined in the LGPAS gives each cooperative exclusive access rights to a geographical area. To evaluate the performance of the cooperatives, authorities follow up the fishery based on the cooperatives’ Annual Harvesting Program, where each fishing cooperative reports levels of exploitation, and projected monthly catch, as well as number of boats and traps to be used. The fishing authority (CONAPESCA), based on the results of specific monitoring programs, either accepts the proposal or issues a recommendation for the maximum effort to apply. Additionally, the FEDECOOP has a formal program for Inspection and Surveillance to prevent illegal fishing during the closure season. In 2015 this program requested a budget of MX$ 1,391,880.00. Once the fishing season starts, there is effective monitoring of each lobster landing trip. Lobsters are individually measured at sea and undersized animals and egg-bearing females are returned to the sea. A fishing log is filled out for each trip and submitted to the fishing authorities. There is regular verification of catches and procedures at landing sites by CONAPESCA personnel, as well as verification of the boats and outboard engines power, traps and sizing instruments. Further, there is regular verification of the fishing logs information as contrasted with the registered landings. There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. The monitoring system can be inspected by fishers and other persons seeking for evidence of compliance. Evidence was provided with official information by the Delegacion de Pesca (the fisheries delegation), showing the report of inspections in 2010 and 2015 which resulted in effectively retaining fisheries products (mostly lobsters, but also sea cucumber, clams, abalone) and/or fishing boats, vehicles, etc. and how infractors were forwarded to the judicial system. Overall it was concluded that a comprehensive monitoring program is in place which includes control and surveillance systems that allow enforcement of relevant management measures such as season closure, minimum size and protection of females. The fishery
Justification meets the standard at SG100. b
Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non- non-compliance exist non-compliance exist, are compliance exist, are consistently and there is some consistently applied and applied and demonstrably provide evidence that they are thought to provide effective deterrence.
Guidepost applied. effective deterrence. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 142 of 199
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with
The local community nature of each cooperative creates a closed social system that makes non-compliance very difficult for fishers that are members of a cooperative. The penalty for an infraction depends on the scope and systematic occurrence and ranges from a simple warning to cancelation of membership. The social and economic consequences of the sanctions are a strong deterrent for FEDECOOP members to act against the rules. During a fishing season therefore it is very unlikely that cooperative members act against the rules. During this time it is also difficult that non-cooperative fishers engage in illegal fishing because the cooperative members spend a lot of time at sea serving as guards of their own resource. Outside of the fishing season the Inspection and Vigilance takes place in coordination with CONAPESCA inspectors and there’s evidence of illegal fishing at sea incidents leading to arrests and seizure of catch, gear and vessel. There is therefore a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system, including the flow of relevant information in the management of the fishery. The system meets the requirements at SG100.
Justification c Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply the management system comply with the with the management system for the fishery under management system under assessment, including, assessment, including, under assessment, providing information of
when required, including, when required, importance to the effective providing information of providing information of management of the fishery. importance to the importance to the effective management of effective management of
Guidepost the fishery. the fishery. Met? (Y) (Y) (Y)
The local community nature of each cooperative creates a closely knitted social system that makes non-compliance very difficult for fishers that are members of a cooperative. The penalty for an infraction depends on the scope and systematic occurrence and ranges from a simple warning to cancelation of membership. This is stressful situation for a fisher because it creates also a sense of social rejection with the community and loss of the sense of belonging. During a fishing season therefore it is very unlikely that cooperative members act against the rules. During this time it is also difficult that non-cooperative fishers engage in illegal fishing because the cooperative members spend a lot of time at sea serving as guards of their own resource. Out of the fishing season the Inspection and Vigilance takes place in coordination with CONAPESCA inspectors and there’s evidence of stopping illegal fishing at sea leading to arrests and seizure of catch, gear and vessel. There is therefore a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system, including the flow of relevant information in the management of the fishery. The system meets the requirements at SG100.
Justification d There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance.
Guidepost Met? (Y)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 143 of 199
Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with
The team didn’t find evidence of systematic non-compliance and concluded that the fishery meets the requirement at SG80.
Justification References
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 144 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4
The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Research is undertaken, A research plan provides A comprehensive research plan as required, to achieve the management system provides the management system the objectives consistent with a strategic approach with a coherent and strategic with MSC’s Principles 1 to research and reliable approach to research across P1,
and 2. and timely information P2 and P3, and reliable and timely sufficient to achieve the information sufficient to achieve objectives consistent the objectives consistent with with MSC’s Principles 1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
Guidepost and 2. Met? (Y) (N) (N) Research by INAPESCA is undertaken as required to achieve objectives that are consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. This research is usually organized in Annual Operative Plans and is determined by the current needs of the fishery (e.g. INAPESCA 2010). There is an old Monitoring Plan (INAPESCA 2006) that describes sampling protocols to investigate lobster reproductive biology and to conduct massive fisheries sampling. The objectives of this Plan were to obtain reproductive information to support the season closure and the minimum size rule and to obtain biometric information to determine equivalences of minimum size
to cephalothorax length and tail weight. A more comprehensive outline of a Research Program is found in the Draft of the Management Plan, but no current active document contains a full comprehensive description of the Plan as required in terms of “a written document that includes a specific research plan for the fishery under assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring research” (CR CB4.10.3). Therefore this
Justification scoring issue meets SG60 but not SG80. b
Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are available to interested disseminated to all disseminated to all interested parties. interested parties in a parties in a timely fashion and are timely fashion. widely and publicly available.
Guidepost Met? (Y) (N) (N)
INAPESCA has made results of research available but it has taken excessive time to reach interested parties and are often not widely and publicly available. This situation meets the standard at SG60 but not SG80.
Justification
References [List any references here]
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3-1. A research plan must be developed as a written document that includes a plan for the fishery under assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring research. The plan must provide the management system with a strategic approach to research and
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 145 of 199
The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. 3-2. Results of research conducted to inform management actions must be disseminated to all parties in a timely fashion.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 146 of 199
Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.5
There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery has in place The fishery has in place The fishery has in place mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate all parts some parts of the key parts of the of the management system. management system. management system
Guidepost Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
The team was provided with evidence showing that INAPESCA conducts evaluations of key parts of the management system such as the closure season and minimum length and that such evaluations have led to modifications of the management actions reflected in publications in the Official Gazette (e.g. DOF 2009; DOF 2015). This meets the requirement at SG80 but would have to present evidence of evaluation for all parts of the management
Justification system to reach SG100. b The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management management system is management system is system is subject to regular subject to occasional subject to regular internal and external review. internal review. internal and occasional
Guidepost external review. Met? (Y) (Y) (N)
The team had access to evidence of internal and external reviews of the Annual Operative Plans but not of the overall management scheme. These reviews are considered insufficient and a recommendation is added to produce new reviews at the internal and external levels. The fishery meets the standard at SG80 with a recommendation.
Justification
References DOF (2009); DOF (2015); Csirke et al. (2005).
OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80
CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): RECOMMENDATION: Produce an updated review of the management system at the internal and external level (including non-target species).
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 147 of 199
Appendix 1.2 Conditions Three conditions were raised that apply to Principle 1. One condition relates to PI 1.1.2 and the other two apply to PI 1.2.2. These are new conditions about issues that were not considered in the last re-assessment, likely because the fishery was re-assessed using a different version of the standard and because interpretation of these PIs was more permitting to allow for concepts in passive management to be used as reference points and forms of controlling the way the fishery operates. With the implementation of the CR V1.3, evaluation of PI 1.1.2 and in particular 1.2.2 has become more oriented towards active management and the interpretation of the requirements is more closely followed to the initial intent in the language. The assessment team considered this was the right time to align the performance of the Baja California Red Rock Lobster fishery with the CR as intended, and the client understood the opportunity and accepted the challenge. Two conditions are raised in this assessment for Principle 2 for PI 2.1.3 and 2.2.3. Both conditions are related to information and monitoring needs. In the previous reassessment, two conditions were established to provide information on the amount and origin of the bait (condition 2.2.1 - MSC FAM V2.1 CR was used for scoring, therefore bait was scored under bycatch species in PI 2.2.x - see explanation in section 4.2) and the establishment of a monitoring and reporting system for bycatch species (condition 2.2.3), including the amount and species. Information was compiled through Monthly Bait Production Record - Lobster Fishery form, and logbooks. Both conditions showed progress and were closed. During the third surveillance audit, two new recommendations were issued for recording information at species level in the logbooks for bycatch species and their end use (retained, discarded or released alive). The information was submitted in detail for main species of bait, sardines, but data for other retained and bycatch species were presented grouped and in number of organisms rather than catches, both in the Monthly Record of bait and notebooks production logbook. The conditions 2-1 and 2-2 raised for this reassessment are related to previous condition 2.2.3 and recommendation 3 of 3rd surveillance audit that was not met regarding end use of species. Two conditions were raised under Principle 3 relating to the requirement of a Research Plan and that the results of research are disseminated timely. These conditions were not raised in the past under consideration of the large body of work that has been produced in support of the fishery management system. The present assessment does not disregard that work and its achievements, the team however considered that the research was not providing “the management system with a strategic approach” which is “pro-active, anticipatory and identifies gaps on knowledge in advance driven by management needs”. The CR V1.3 also indicates that “teams shall interpret a ‘research plan’ in both SG80 and SG100 to mean a written document that includes a specific research plan for the fishery under assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and issues requiring research”. In other words, the management system must have a document including strategic research planning. Additionally, it has been a consistent issue that management oriented research information is not delivered on time causing unnecessary stress and delays. The assessment team considered that these conditions would work in the intended way to improve the management system by informing on the need of having this strategic planning document.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 148 of 199
Table A1.3: Condition 1-1
Condition 1-1
Performance PI 1.1.2(b) Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock Indicator Score 75 Rationale There’s no definition of limit reference point. Define explicit reference points that are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated. The Condition Limit Reference Point is set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. The Target Reference Point works to maintain the stock at a level consistent with Bmsy or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, appropriate reference points have been identified and initial testing has been conducted. Initial consultation has started. 2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year, appropriate reference have been discussed and accepted by the community. The process to formalize the publication of the Milestones reference points has started.
3. Surveillance 3 (2019): By the third year, the reference points have been published in the official gazette and are ready to be used in the following fishing season. 4. Surveillance 4 (2020): By the fourth year the reference points are defined and operate according to the requirements of PI 1.1.2. Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA, FEDECOOP 1. Surveillance (2017): By the first year, appropriate reference points have been identified and initial testing has been conducted. Initial consultation has started. Activities: - Review biological aspects that determine lobster population dynamics. - Identify biomass levels that could cause recruitment to be compromised. - Identify fishing mortality levels that produce MSY. - Conduct a workshop to consult with fishers and experts if the identified reference points are appropriate for the stock and the fishery. - Initial simulation testing is conducted. Client action Expected - Meeting minutes plan outcome:
Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 2. Surveillance (2018): By the second year, appropriate reference have been discussed and accepted by the community. The process to formalize the publication of the reference points has started. Activities: - Testing is completed and reference points are established. - A final workshop is conducted where reference points are discussed and approved by fishers, authorities and stakeholders. - Consultations are conducted to agree on the mechanism to formalize the use of the approved reference points for the fishery. Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Draft of National Fishing Chart or Management plan
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 149 of 199
Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 3. Surveillance (2019): By the third year, the reference points have been submitted for publication in the official gazette and are ready to be used in the following fishing season Activities: - Annual meeting to update the stock status and evaluate it from the reference points - Submitting to CONAPESCA the draft the National Fishing Chart or Management Plan, for the official publication Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Stock assessment report - Official publication of National Fishing Chart or Management Plan Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 4. Surveillance (2020): By the fourth year the reference points are defined and operate according to the requirements of PI 1.1.2. Activities: - Annual meeting to update the stock status and evaluate it from the reference points Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Stock assessment report Expected Score expected to increase to 80, condition is closed score: Consultation Letters of support from INAPESCA and FEDECOOP in relation with action plan on condition
Condition 1-2
Performance PI 1.2.2(a) There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Indicator Score 65 The red rock lobster fishery of Baja California has operated under the application of traditional passive management strategies such as minimum legal size and protection of egg bearing females. For this reason, there are no binding documents with well- defined, pre-agreed harvest control rules that are designed to reduce effort in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points (SG80). At SG60 HCRs don’t need to be well defined, there needs to be “at least some implicit agreement supported by past management actions from which to understand Rationale that ‘generally understood’ rules exist, and there should be no reason to expect that management will not continue to follow such generally understood rules in future”
(MSC Interpretations Log). The lobster chapter in the Red Book (Vega 2006) declares that if Est=(Bt_Actual)⁄B_MSY , “stock status is determined according to the following decision rule:” Status 1. Est ≤ 1: The stock is below optimum level ⇒ Recovery strategy required.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 150 of 199
Status 2. Est > 1: The stock is above optimum level ⇒ Fishery with further development potential. Status 3. Est = 1: The stock is at optimum level ⇒ The fishery is at the adequate level. The team did not receive any evidence that this rule is systematically used either to define a recovery strategy or to explicitly describe how to compute the catch amount for further development of the fishery. There wasn’t either any evidence of a formal procedure to translate or connect actual actions to the decision reached if the rule was applied. . For example under “recovery strategy” there are no procedures or actions, explaining how the strategy would change the length of the closure season or the number of active traps. Fishing effort is regulated based on an internal process at each cooperative that takes into account the performance of fishers, stock size, technical recommendations from INAPESCA staff and economic factors (see details in section 4.8 on Management in the Background). This process is guaranteed as a safe guard to hold the exclusive rights granted in the concession title obtained to harvest a specific area. As per the needs at the SG 60, this is interpreted as an informal approach in which understood rules are in place and are consistent with the harvest strategy. The MSC Interpretations log also says that “Evidence that positive action has been taken in the past should be considered to be evidence that there is a generally understood rule in place.” To indicate “whether the fishery will in future take appropriate management action in line with what they perceive as the ‘generally understood’ rule. The history of the fishery also demonstrates that in practice, fishing pressure has been consistently and systematically maintained to keep the stock above it’s optimal level (Bmsy proxy). The current approach doesn’t act to reduce exploitation effort as a limit reference point is approached because no limit reference point has been declared, but evidence indicates an effective process to modify the current operation of tools and agreements to prevent the stock to depart from the estimated current biomass status above the level producing MSY. Although not adhering precisely to the definition at SG60, the team considered that the approach is equivalent in intent and outcome and accepted it meets the standard at SG60. Because there’s no explicit pre-agreed, well-defined rule in place, the fishery cannot meet SG80.
Condition The harvest control rule must be pre-agreed, well defined and in place; it must be consistent with the harvest strategy to ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as
the limit reference point is approached. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, the harvest control rule is proposed and initial testing has been conducted. Initial consultation has started. 2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year, the harvest control rule has been pre- agreed and is well defined. The rule has been discussed and accepted by the community. The process to formalize the publication of the control rule has Milestones started.
3. Surveillance 3 (2019): By the third year, the harvest control rule is pre-agreed, published in the official gazette and is ready to be used in the following fishing season in parallel with the reference points. 4. Surveillance 4 (2020): By the fourth year the harvest control rule is well defined, in place and operating according to the requirements of PI 1.2.2. Client action plan Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA, FEDECOOP
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 151 of 199
1. Surveillance (2017): By the first year, the harvest control rule is proposed and initial testing has been conducted. Initial consultation has started. Activities: - Conduct a workshop to consult with fishers and experts if the identified harvest control rules are appropriate for to maintain or reach the reference points. - Initial simulation testing is conducted. Expected Meeting minutes outcome: Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 2. Surveillance (2018): By the second year, the harvest control rule has been pre- agreed and is well defined. The rule has been discussed and accepted by the community. The process to formalize the publication of the control rule has started. Activities: - Testing is completed and HCR are established. - A final workshop is conducted where HCR are discussed and approved by fishers, authorities and stakeholders. - Consultations are conducted to agree on the mechanism to formalize the use of the approved HCR for the fishery. Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Draft of National Fishing Chart or Management plan Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 3. Surveillance (2019): By the third year, the harvest control rule is pre-agreed, published in the official gazette and is ready to be used in the following fishing season in parallel with the reference points. Activities: - Annual meeting to update the stock status and evaluate it from the reference points to take action related with HCR. - Submitting to CONAPESCA the draft the National Fishing Chart or Management Plan, for the official publication Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Stock assessment report - Official publication of National Fishing Chart or Management Plan Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 4. Surveillance (2020): By the fourth year the harvest control rule is well defined, in place and operating according to the requirements of PI 1.2.2. Activities: - Annual meeting to update the stock status and evaluate it from the reference points to take action related with HCR. Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Stock assessment report Expected Score expected to increase to 80, condition is closed score: Consultation on Letters of support from INAPESCA and FEDECOOP in relation with action plan condition
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 152 of 199
Condition 1-3
Performance PI 1.2.2(b) There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Indicator Score 65 The Guidance to the CR V1.3 indicates in GCB2.6, that uncertainty can be addressed by testing either through simulation, comparison with analogous fisheries or empirical Rationale testing. No evidence was provided to indicate that such type of testing or other approach to evaluate the potential impacts of the main uncertainties on the decisions made after application of the control rule. The SG80 cannot be met in this scoring issue. Condition The selection of the control rule must take into account the main uncertainties. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, the main sources of uncertainty affecting the performance of the HCR have been identified and a basic analytical structure has been outlined. Some initial testing has taken place. Milestones 2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year, analyses have been completed and the
main uncertainties have been accounted for in the performance of the HCR. The new or revised HCR is incorporated in the regulations and the process to formalize its publication in the official gazette has started. Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA
Client action plan 1. Surveillance (2017): By the first year, the main sources of uncertainty affecting the performance of the HCR have been identified and a basic analytical structure has been outlined. Some initial testing has taken place. Activities: - Annual meeting to evaluate the stock status, the reference points and the HCR, testing some simulation methods including uncertainty Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Stock assessment report Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage
score: 2. Surveillance (2018): By the second year, analyses have been completed and the main uncertainties have been accounted for in the performance of the HCR. The new
or revised HCR is incorporated in the regulations and the process to formalize its publication in the official gazette has started. Activities: Annual meeting to evaluate the stock status, the reference points
and the HCR, with simulation methods including uncertainty Expected - Meeting minutes outcome: - Draft of National Fishing Chart or Management plan Expected Score expected to increase to 80, condition is closed
score: Consultation on Letters of support from INAPESCA and FEDECOOP in relation with action plan condition
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 153 of 199
Condition 2-1
PI 2.1.3 (b) Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to Performance determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage Indicator retained species
Score 75
Rationale Information collected for species used as bait, does not have the level of detail (source, species, and volume) to accurately estimate outcome status. By second surveillance, provide information at the species level on the volume and source Condition 2-1 of bait and other retained species in this fishery. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year information is being collected on Milestones 2-1 bait/retained species with sufficient level of accuracy. 2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year the client presents information at the species level on the volume and origin of bait and other retained species in this fishery. Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA, FEDECOOP, CONAPESCA 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year information is being collected on bait/retained species.
Activities: At this stage FEDECOOP with the support of INAPESCA will start a program for taxonomic identification of all retained and baits species. A control will be put in place to implement that record the volume and source of the bait used. Expected By the first surveillance the client will provide evidence that bait data outcome: collection is being collected for the first year. This will include a list of bait species with scientific names preliminary data on volumes and evidence that the monitoring system has been improved. Client action plan Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage. score: Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year the client presents information at the species level on the volume and origin of bait and other retained species in this fishery.
Activities: FEDECOOP will continue the record for bait and with the support of INAPESCA will analyze all information collected monthly (Record for Bait and Landing Records). Expected By the second surveillance the client will provide a technical report, per outcome: fishing season, which includes characterization of species used as bait in lobster fishing, specifying volume by species and source. Expected Expected score: 80, condition is closed. score:
Consultation on Letters of support from INAPESCA and FEDECOOP in relation with action plan condition
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 154 of 199
Condition 2-2
PI 2.2.3 (b) Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to Performance determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage Indicator bycatch Score 75 Information is recorded in the fishing logbooks on bycatch species captured (SG60), sometimes grouped into one category (for example, fish) and number of organisms, but weight is not included, which makes it difficult to estimate volume with respect to the total catch. There is adequate information on the number of sharks and other bycatch species captured but it is not sufficient for estimating outcome status with respect to biologically- Rationale based limits because the final status of discarded species is unknown in the case of sharks. Moreover, this information as well as volume are also unknown for the other minor bycatch species.
SG80 is not met because: (a) information does not provide volume by weight; (b) no information on mortality; (c) not at the species level; (d) unclear which is retained and which is bycatch.
Condition By third surveillance, provide accuracy information at the species level on the volume of bycatch species in this fishery, information and evidence of end use of sharks and other bycatch species. 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, data collection of bycatch species with logbooks has been improved. This includes the annotation of the type and number of sharks Milestones captured and a comment on whether they were retained or discarded dead or released alive.
2. Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year the client presents evidence that information of bycatch species is being systematically collected and analyzed.
Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA, FEDECOOP Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year, data collection of bycatch species with logbooks has been improved. This includes the annotation of the type and number of sharks captured and a comment on whether they were retained or discarded dead or released alive. At this stage FEDECOOP with the support of INAPESCA will identify all bycatch Activities: species, including sharks, fish and invertebrates and will start to record volume of bycatch species in each of the concession areas of the SCPP within the unit of assessment.
Client action plan Expected Report of bycatch species during the lobster season 2017/18 outcome:
Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage. score: Surveillance 2 (2018): By the second year the client presents evidence that information of bycatch species is being systematically collected and analyzed.
Activities: The client, together with the staff of INAPESCA will continue the application of an improved system of recording for bycatch species and this is systematically and continuously applied over the entire client group.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 155 of 199
Report of bycatch species during the lobster season 2018/19 Expected outcome: No anticipated changes in score at this stage. Expected score: Surveillance 3 (2019): By the third year client presents information on bycatch species (quantity, composition and end use) that is sufficient to estimate outcome status.
Activities: The client, together with the staff of INAPESCA will continue the application of an improved system of recording for bycatch species and this is systematically and continuously applied over the entire client group.
Expected Report of bycatch species during the lobster season 2018/19, which outcome: incorporates information on volumes, composition and end use of bycatch species.
Expected 80, condition is closed score: Consultation on A letter of support from INAPESCA in relation with action plan condition
Condition 3-1
Performance PI 3.2.4 (a) The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management Indicator Score 60
Research by INAPESCA is undertaken as required to achieve objectives that are consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. This research is usually organized in Annual Operative Plans and is determined by the current needs of the fishery (e.g. INAPESCA 2010). There is an old Monitoring Plan (INAPESCA 2006) that describes sampling protocols to investigate lobster reproductive biology Rationale and to conduct massive fisheries sampling. The objectives of this Plan were to obtain reproductive information to support the season closure and the minimum size rule and to obtain biometric information to determine equivalences of minimum size to cephalothorax length and tail weight. A more comprehensive outline of a Research Program is found in the Draft of the Management Plan, but no current active document contains a full comprehensive description of the Plan as required in terms of “a written document that includes a specific research plan for the fishery under assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring research” (CR CB4.10.3). Therefore this scoring issue meets SG60 but not SG80. A research plan must be developed as a written document that includes a plan for the fishery under Condition assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring research. The plan must provide the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.
Milestones 1. Surveillance (2017): By the first year the management plan was published in the official gazette; it´s including the general research program with objectives and goals in the short, medium and long term.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 156 of 199
2. Surveillance (2018). By the second year the client presents evidence of the evaluation of results of the program research and it´s review for updating objectives and goals in the short, medium and long term Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA, FEDECOOP Client action 3. Surveillance (2017): Surveillance (2017): By the first year the management plan was published plan in the official gazette; it´s including the general research program with objectives and goals in the short, medium and long term. Activities: - Public consultation of the draft of management plan for lobster fishery, to submit at CONAPESCA to formalize it.
- Annual meeting to discuss at research plan to reach the objectives and conditions of the certification. Expected - Official publication of the lobster management plan. outcome: - Minutes of meeting - Research plan whit objectives and goals in short, medium and long term
Expected No expected change of score score: Surveillance (2018 ): By the second year the client presents evidence of the evaluation of results of the program research and it´s review for updating objectives and goals in the short, medium and long term Activities: - Annual meeting to evaluate the results of the program research 2017 - Updating objectives and goals in the short, medium and long term form the program research 2018. Expected - Minute of meeting outcome: - Research plan whit objectives and goals in short, medium and long term
Expected 80, condition is closed score: Consultation A letters of support from INAPESCA and FEDECOOP in relation with action plan on condition
Condition 3-2
Performance PI 3.2.4 (b) The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management Indicator
Score 60
Rationale INAPESCA has made results of research available but it has taken excessive time to reach interested parties and is often not widely and publicly available. This situation meets the standard at SG60 but not SG80. Condition Results of research conducted to inform management actions must be disseminated to all parties in a timely fashion.
Milestones 1. Surveillance 1 (2017): By the first year a Annual meetings between INAPESCA and FEDECOOP are held after each fishing season to discuss results of the analysis of the fishery.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 157 of 199
2. Surveillance (2018). By the second year the client presents evidence of the annual meeting between INAPESCA and FEDECOOP are implemented after each lobster season. Responsible Party/ies: INAPESCA, FEDECOOP Client action plan Surveillance (2017): Annual meetings between INAPESCA and FEDECOOP are held after each fishing season to discuss results of the analysis of the fishery.
Activities: - Annual meeting to evaluate the results of the lobster season 2016/17
Expected - Minute of meeting outcome: - Stock assessment report
Expected No anticipated changes in score at this stage score: 2. Surveillance (2018): By the second year the client presents evidence of the annual meeting
between INAPESCA and FEDECOOP are implemented after each lobster season.
Activities: - Annual meeting to evaluate the results of the lobster season 2017/18
Expected - Minute of meeting outcome: - Stock assessment report Expected Expected score: 80, condition is closed.
score: Consultation Letter of support from INAPESCA and FEDECOOP in relation with action plan on condition
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 158 of 199
Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports
6.4.4. Peer Reviewer 1
Overall Opinion
Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate Yes Conformity Assessment Body Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? The reviewer requires rectification of the The population dynamics of the red rock lobster are not well lack of “discussion of the critical growth, documented in the assessment report. There is no discussion of the natural mortality rates or stock recruitment critical growth, natural mortality rates or stock recruitment relationships that determine the model relationships that determine the model output of the population output of the population assessment assessment models. This needs to be rectified. models”. This is comment is too broad to In spite of this serious omission the available evidence shows that it identify what exactly the expectation is of is highly likely that biomass, in the area of the fishery being what needs to be discussed. Overall, the certified, has not fallen below Bo/2. In addition, the very high stock assessments and their reports fishing mortality rates on legal sized lobster when coupled with the certainly have room for improvement as relatively stable landings in the fishery suggest that recruitment has mentioned in the Evaluation Table PI 1.2.4 been relatively stable and reproductive overfishing has not and the supporting background. We would occurred. be more than willing to incorporate more It appears that the traditional fishing regulations (SSS and effort specific aspects to provide the client with limitations) have been set at levels that are unlikely to result in feedback on directions about how to overfishing. So in spite of the lack of modern threshold based improve their assessments. We only caution management the fishery appears to be sustainably exploited and, in on the fact that we are also bounded by the my opinion, the fishery should be certified. directive of the MSC requirements as it pertains to the content of specific PIs.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 159 of 199
Do you think the condition(s) raised are No See Conformity Assessment Body appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome Retained Response within the specified timeframe? Species The extensive conditions on the two lower scoring indicators in Principal (1) Producing reference points is a 1: reference points and harvest control rules and tools are well designed process that can lead to alternative to bring the fishery into compliance with the required SG 80. ideas and views of what would work better for specific resources. In the The conditions on reference points: are sufficient to establish reference context of this MSC evaluation, the points and the year-by-year series of milestones are laid out for the directives are, a threshold biomass expected progress on this critical indicator. under which recruitment is compromised (LRP) and a level (or The conditions on the harvest control rules is of course dependent upon surrogate) that is consistent with MSY. the development of suitable reference points. There is no evidence that This is as much as an assessment team there are any pre-agreed management measures describing actions to be can require. Providing advice on the taken if the fishery falls below the MSY level. The team pointedly specifics about how to develop these discusses this lack in the conditions on this indicator and the milestones quantities, what type of models and for this indicator also have a year-by-year progression toward meeting what are critical assumptions, is not in the SG 80 standards for this indicator. part of the MSC evaluation process.
Accurate reference points and control rules are almost entirely (2) After the PCDR was completed, the dependent upon high quality estimates of growth, natural mortality and assessment team learned that the recruitment rates. The team does not do an adequate job of addressing term “sardines” for the client is not this in either the body of their report or conditions (1). restricted to Monterrey sardines but includes a variety of other small Retained species: The team was not aware of the present low biomass of pelagic species. The composition of this the northern stock of sardine (2), the closure of the sardine fishery in the group of “sardines” varies from year to US and the stocks present rebuilding status. The conditions on this year depending on the availability of indicator are primarily to establish the source and volume of the sardine the different species at sea. The final used as bait. There is no emphasis on developing a pre-determined plan assessment on the use of “sardines” as describing what management measures should be taken when a sardine bait had to look that the potential stock is depleted and or in a rebuilding status. proportions of each species relative to the total catch in the entire Mexican In the absence of a research plan one must be developed and this is fishery of small pelagics and concluded specified in the conditions for this indicator. that for each species the proportions are low enough to consider that the use of “sardine” as bait in the lobster fishery would represent a risk on each species to cause “serious or irreversible harm” or to “hinder the recovery of depleted retained species” as intended in PI 2.1.1
The background section and rationale for PI 2.1.1. has been revised and more information was added. Hill et al. (2016) reference has been added to the reference list. Nevertheless, since sardines used for bait in the lobster fishery represent only a ”marginal contribution” (6 %) of the fishery of the West Coast of California, team does not consider that scoring issue c. (recovery and rebuilding) should be scored.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 160 of 199
General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional)
The fishing mortality rates in this fishery are very high, F>1.5 for lobsters just entering the fishery. Due to the high fishing mortality rates the age structure of the lobster population is very truncated and clearly very different than that with no fishery. Fecundity in lobsters is generally quite non-linear with fecundity increasing rapidly with increasing size. This suggests that an analysis of the present stock fecundity vs the unfished stock fecundity should be made.
It is likely that a reduction in this rate would decrease potential interaction with protected species, reduce the bycatch, reduce the concern over the main sardine species, increase the SPR of the stock, increase the CPUE and increase the profitability of the fishery. Modeling should be carried out to assess the yield, spawning potential ratio and value of a range of fishing mortality rates and size limits. This could be done with yield-per- recruit models and/or more complete population models.
Note that with a steep Beverton and Holt spawner/recruit relationship and a biomass above Bmsy there is very little difference between these two types of models. The obvious method to decrease the fishing mortality rate would be to reduce fishing effort; however, there does not appear to have been any discussion of the merits of decreased effort or how it could be implemented. There also is no evaluation of the current size limit.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 161 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Performance Indicator Review
PI Has all Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body the informatio condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific Response scoring issues and any relevant documentation relevant n and/or raised where possible. Please attach additional pages if informati rationale improve the necessary. on used to fishery’s available score this performanc been used Indicator e to the to score support SG80 level? this the given (Yes/No/NA) Indicator? score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No)
1.1.1 No Yes No The history of stock assessment on the Baja red The relevant comment here is rock lobster stock has shown an increasing highligthed to recall that this PI sophistication over the last 10-15 years and is about two main questions: a) there is good evidence that the portion of the is the stock at levels above the stock that lies within the area covered by the point where recruitment is MSC Certification has been maintained at impared? and b) has the stock biomass levels above half of the unfished level. been above or fluctuating Any fishery that has always been fished at around the level producing sustainable levels has a major modeling MSY? problem. Biomass has never been observed at lower levels and therefore stock/recruitment The assessment team doesn’t relationships cannot be validly estimated as deny the relevance of improving there are no data points at low biomass levels. the stock assessment but This means that the shape (i.e. densitiy- cannot advocate a particular dependence) of the stock-recruitment modeling approach. We have relationship cannot be estimated. The most however highligthed the need recent stock assessment has used a very to resolve noticeable conservative, symetrical, relationship; however differences in the results of the parameters used are not included in the different assessment MSC report. approaches that are indicative of inconsistencies in data, There is considerable variation in the recent assumptions or interpretations. estimates of the absolute abundance of the That is as far as we could go stock; however both recent assessments show when the solution or potential a similar relative abundance, with biomass improvement involves never falling below Bmsy. The VPA model and alternative and sometimes shows a significant recent decrease in biomass controversial methodological and a 27% decline is also present in the CPUE approaches. In any case, values (calculated from data in Table 2). CPUE conditions or recommendations falling from 0.831 kg/haul in 2011-2 to 0.608 on these lines are subjects
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 162 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
kg/haul in 2014-15. included in PI 1.2.4. (1) The Vega-Velazquez et al (2015) analysis shows that the fishing mortality rate of lobsters (1) Concerns about age specific just above the size limit is extremely high (F fishing mortality rates (F) should about 1.6 for both males and females: Figure 6). be re-considered because it is likely that such values do not (2) Assessment of the lobster stock requires actually represent F, these accurate, and hopefully verified, estimates of values more likely represent, the growth rate and natural mortality rate. some measure of age specific The only documentation of growth rates in the harvest rate. Actual F was report is the statement that growth studies estimated at 0.1 which is have been performed using a number of applied to all ages at any methods. The natural mortality rate is not particular year. This is more even given in the biological section. The reasonable because F depends descriptions of the several stock assessments on effort that is evenly applied makes no mention of the critical growth and to the entire stock at time t mortality rates used in the assessments. assuming constant catchability. If a pattern of selectivity is (3) Note that the report has two Figure 6s, incorporated then vulnerability pages 22 and 23, and two Figure 7s, pages 22 will certainly vary with age but and 25. the values at age are at the highest that of F (F multiplied (4) As mentioned by the Team, the four fold times a selectivity of one). The difference in biomass estimates (Figure 4 and age specific figure referred has a Figure 6) demonstrates the large amount of pattern that increases back at uncertainty present in the assessments of this older ages which leads to fishery. Is some of this difference in biomass believe that whatever the catch assessmet due to different growth and at such ages, is high given the mortality rates in the two assessments? low abundance of those ages, thus more likely representing (5) The Team also mentioned the very unusual some form of age specific pattern of fishing mortality rate vs age seen in exploitation rate with high Figure 6 of the 2015 assessment (Vega- values that are not adjusted to a Velazquez et al 2015). It is difficult to maximum of 1 (where the catch understand what would cause the fishing at age removes all individuals at mortality rates in the 3rd and 4th season in the that age). fishery to be less than half of that in the 1st and 2nd and I would consider these results to be (2) This has been addressed questionable until I am able to review the above in the general comments original paper. Note that with the F values in section. the first 2 years in the fishery (i.e. F=1.6 and 1,5) and M=0.18 only 3% of the recruited (3) noted. females would survive to the end of the second fishing season. (4) This has already been mentioned and attention to the The length frequencies in Figure 3 demonstrate client has been called to work that there are virtually no older lobsters in the on this issue. population making it very difficult to assess the fishing mortality rates of older lobsters. (5) See point (1) for comment
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 163 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
on this. (6) The Vega-Velazquez et al (2015) assessment found that the pooled data from 1997 to 2015 (6) The proportion of lobsters showed that 88.7% of the population is under under the legal size in the the legal size and that only 11.3% are legal sized population refers to length (page 19). This statement appears to be frequencies, i.e. numbers, referring to the length frequencies; so the whereas the harvest rate of 0.1 statement is actually referring to the numbers refers to biomass. of lobsters, not the biomass. The relatative biomass of the sub-legal and legal componets (7) There’s no reference of an F of the population does not appear to be value from the Red Book in the included in the report. The estimated harvest assessment report. If this is a rate “near 0.1” also appears to be based on reference to some value directly numbers (page 19). Basing the harvest rate on from the Red Book, it should be numbers rather than biomass is very misleading necessary to point to what with a stock that does not recruit to the fishery exactly the reader is looking at. until they are about 7 years old. Since control There are several estimates of F rules are usually based on biomass, not in the Red Book and they refer numbers, this is a significant factor and the MSC to different things. In the same report should clarify if the 88.7% refers to way, the comment by the numbers or biomass and comment if it is based reviewer likely refers to on numbers. vulnerability (the product of selectivity times F) instead of F. (7) I assume that the Red Book value refers to Fishing mortality is evenly the fishing mortaliy rate based on the total applied to all ages at any age+1 biomass (or numbers) not the fishing particular time unless the mortality rate on the biomass (or numbers) fishers are divided and each lobsters recruited to the fishery. The biomass group is harvesting different age or numbers confusion should be explained in classes at different levels of the report. The reference points used in most effort with the same gear. fisheries are based on estimates, or proxies, of the reproductive output not on total biomass. (8) The assessment team Consideration of basing the reference points on already has added a spawning biomass, female spawning biomass or recommendation to investigate reproductive output should be discusssed in the the impact of the absence of report. large females of high reproductive value. (8) The material presented in this report does not allow any real assessment of the large age- (9) Actually, Figure 3 includes dependent fishing mortality rates nor is it samples from the commercial possible to compare the fishing mortality rate catch where gear selectivity will of the lobsters > 82.5 mm CL vs that of the total remove lobsters smaller than 85 population. mm. The Figure also shows the size distribution from massive (9) Note that the length frequencies in Figure 3 samples which includes gear are not the population length frequencies; they that will catch small lobsters are dependent upon the size -dependent (mesh of 1x1 in), therefore it is catchability of the sampling gear. considered to represent the population size distribution.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 164 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
It appears that there is very little information (10) Even if the assessment on the biomass of sexually immature lobster team considers the SPR a useful and the population estimates for this segment indicator of population status, of the population are entirely dependent upon we are uncertain if we can the growth, natural mortality and spawner- actually make this recruit population dynamic parameters that recommendation. were not presented in the report. Better documentation of the population dynamics (11) This cannot be included in rates and spawner/recruit relationships used in actual Conditions because the stock assessments should be provided in neither PI 1.1.1 nor 1.2.4 (which the final report. would be more appropriate) are under SG80. Recommendations Even given all of the above analytical problems, could be added about this issue I agree with the team’s conclusion that the for PI 1.2.4 if the suggested biomass is above the MSY level. I would analyses are presented more recommend that in the future the spawning specifically and how they would biomass, or better the reproductive output or help improving issues in the spawning potential ratio (SPR) be used as an fishery that have a concrete MSY index rather than total biomass. (10) impact on specific scores.
(11) The conditions for this indicator should include studies to verify the growth equations used in the stock assessments. Recent unpublished studies in California have shown that annual growth increments of tagged lobster are considerably less than those from published growth models.
1.1.2 Yes Yes Yes Management of the central Baja portion of the The assessment team agrees spiny lobster population has been based on with most of the comments traditional size, season and sex (SSS) made by the reviewer on this PI. regulations and effort management measures. There’s no action necessary. It appears that the current size limit, closed There’s however a season, the prohibition on landing berried recommendation at the end of female lobsters and limited entry has the comment with regards of successfully prevented the fishery from the use of changes in CPUE to reproductive overfishing the stock. increase the score of this PI. However, it isn’t clear how this Bringing the management into line with approach would determine the currently utilized management reference points definition of reference points, based on sustainable yield estimates of Fmsy, and it isn’t clear either if the Emsy or Bmsy will require additional stock recommendation is unique and assessments and simulation modeling. The therefore necessary or one simulation modeling will be required because alternative that cannot be valid stock-recruitment models cannot be advocated in the assessment. calculated for stocks that have not been observed at biomass levels below Bmsy.
The Vega-Velazquez et al (2015) biomass
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 165 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
assessment model uses a symetrical production curve; which places maximum production at Bo/2. It should be recognized that this is a quite conservative policy and that it is likely that usage of a model with a Beverton and Holt spawner-recruit relationship containing a large steepness parameter (as is common in many bottomfish and shellfish models) would put Bmsy below Bo/2.
The principal difficulty in establishing biomass based reference points for the Baja portion of the spiny lobster stock is that there are two recent assessments that have greatly different estimates of Bo. Figure 6 (Vega-Velazquez et al (2015) shows a total biomass varying between about 3000 to 4500 mt during the period of 1989-2014. Their Figure 7 shows that since 2000 recruitment has averaged about 2300 mt with a recent modest decline. Catch (Figure 2) has averaged about 1500 mt since 2000. The stated MSY from this analysis is 2358 mt. Essenially this model shows that annual recruitment is very close to the Bmsy biomass.
The report states that the 2014-15 catch was near 65% of MSY. Note that the 2011-12 catch was just over 80% of MSY. The fishing mortality rate of lobsters just recruited to the fishery is about F=1.6 (Figure 6). With a natural mortality rate of M=0.18 this results in a harvest rate of 75%.
In contrast Figure 4, from the biomass dynamics model, shows that the total bomass had significant temporal trends and biomass since 2000 has been relataively stable (averaging about 16000 mt.).
Until the very large differences in the biomass assessments is resolved, biomass based reference points will be controversial.
It is generaly assumed that CPUE is a valid index of the population size of lobsters above the size limit. Therefor an interim measure based on changes in CPUE and a pre-determined management response could be a possibly management measure that would achieve SG
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 166 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
80.
1.1.3 NA NA NA NA
1.2.1 Yes Yes NA Management is primarily based on limitation of A stock assessment is conducted fishing effort, a size limit, seasonal closures and and the stock status is protection of berried females. Presently there determined relative to several is no annual evaluation to determine if this indicators. As previously strategy meets an established control rule or mentioned, other approaches threshold value; nor is there any prescribed are possible but can only management action described if the fishery Recommend to improve the exceeds a threshold. stock assessments to resolve obvious problems that The stock assessments, while greatly different introduce significant in total biomass, demonstrate that the fishery uncertainties. has remained above the Bmsy level calculated for each assessment (Vega-Velazquez et al No action needed. (2010), Vega-Velazquez et al (2015)).
It would be helpful if the spawning potential ratios (SPR) were calculated to assess the effect that fishing has had on the reproductive potential of the stock.
Given the lack of annual stock assessments and control rules based on biomass or reproductive output thresholds it would be helpful if a minimum CPUE threshold was developed for this fishery to better regulate fishing effort which is presently accomplished by voluntary effort restrictions. At a minimum the CPUE at MSY should be calculated as CPUE could be of the best measured variables in the fishery.
1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes The fishery has been managed under SSS No action or response regulations which are often successfully used in necessary. trap based crustacean fisheries where captured individuals can be returned to the ocean with very little mortality. The combination of conservative SSS regulations, evidence from the two stock assessments showing that the biomass has not fallen below the Bmsy level and the fact that the cooperataives have reduced fishing effort when it was thought to be necessary is adequate management to meet the SG 60 requirements.
The fishery management of this stock does not appear to include routine stock assessments
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 167 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
and a specific stock assessment methodology has not been established. The two recent stock assessments (Vega-Velazquez et al (2010), Vega-Velazquez et al (2015)) have Bmsy have greatly different biomass values and an assessment methodology for management does not appear to be established. Although it might be assumed that the most recent assessment methodology is the current standard.
There are neither established criteria to define when increased protection is necessary nor are the methods of additional protection pre- established.
1.2.3 Yes Yes NA There appears to be a well established system No action or response to provide fishery-dependent information necessary. which can be used for fishery management and the numbers of lobsters sampled appears to be very large. No fishery-independent sampling program seems to be established.
1.2.4 Yes Yes NA Assuming that the Vega-Velazquez et al (2015) Although the assessment team stock assessment is the current standard may agree with the reviewer assessment model and that this model, with comments on this PI, the score perhaps minor changes, will be used to assess cannot be dropped down to 80 the condition of the stock in the future it because the elements that appears that the assessment passes the SG 80 evaluate appropriateness, level but not the SG 100 level. uncertainty and robustness have already been set at SG80. The length distributions in Figure 3 and fishing There’s only one SI that is above mortality rates in Figure 6 show that the fishing 80 and raises the overall score mortality rate of legal sized lobster is extremely of the PI up to 85 and refers to high. Only 3% of the females survive two years internal and external peer in the fishery (i.e. using Fs from Figure 6 and review of the assessment. Since M=0.18). the fishery provided evidence that of compliance on this, it Figure 6 shows that fishing mortality is heavily isn’t possible to bring down the age-dependent and that F drops very quickly a score to SG80. year (males) or two (females) after the lobster enter the fishery. An assessment of the reasons for this very unusual pattern are beyond the scope of this review; however, it results in considerable doubt about the model methodolgy. It is difficult to imagine why a 8 year old male lobster would have only about half the fishing mortality of a 7 year old or why a 10 year old male lobster would have an F of
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 168 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
0.7 and an 11 year old would have F=1.2.
Until this unusual age-dependent pattern in fishing mortality is either verified or revised by future work the SG 100 score is not warranted. I have not seen the letters from the two external reviewers and without his information my overall evaluation of 1.2.4 would be SG 80.
2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Pacific sardine is the principal ‘retained’ species After the PCDR was completed, in the lobster fishery where it is utilized as a the assessment team learned bait species. These sardines are primarily that the client used “sardines” is caught in the coastal pelagics fishery. not limited to Pacific sardines, Apparently the major source of sardine utilized and it include a variety of small as bait (65%) is the Ensenada fishery and the pelagic species. The remainder are caught locally, presumably in the composition of this group of same region as the lobster fishery. It is “sardines” varies annually generally accepted that there are three stocks depending on the availability of of sardine in the California Current region. The the different species. The final Ensenada fishery is based on two different assessment on the use of sardine stocks (the cold northern stock and the “sardines” as bait evaluated the temperate central Baja California stock. estimated proportions of each However (Félix-Uraga et al 2004) suggest that species relative to the total there are four sardine stocks along the Pacific catch in the entire Mexican coast of North America and the additional stock fishery of small pelagics. The occurs in the more tropical southern end of team concluded that, given the Baja California, (i.e. south of the subtropical highly variable species convergence in the vicinity of Bahia Magdalena. composition in the commercial Therefore the local sardine fishery could take catch, further information sardines from the temperate central Baja stock would be needed to determine and possibly from the warm Magdalena Bay if the use of “sardine” as bait in stock. the lobster fishery would represent a risk any species to Félix‐Uraga, R., V. M. Gómez‐Muñoz, C. cause “serious or irreversible Quiñónez‐Velázquez, F. N. Melo-Barrera, and harm” or to “hinder the W. García-Franco. 2004. On the existence of recovery of depleted retained Pacific sardine groups off the west coast of the species” as intended in PI 2.1.1. Baja California Peninsula and southern Activities in the Client Action California. Calif. Coop. Oceanic Fish. Invest. Rep. Plan for Condition 2-1 have 45:146–151. been modified to address species composition. The very large biomass of the several California Current sardine populations, the known The background section and environmental-dependence of population size, rationale for PI 2.1.1 has been the complexity of the stock structure and the revised and expanded to include wide variation in regulations on the different Hill et al. (2016). Nevertheless, sardine stocks (some of which are regulated since Pacific sardines used for with temperature and/or biomass based bait in the lobster fishery represents only a ”marginal
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 169 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
control rules) makes evaluation of the usage of contribution” (6 %) of the Pacific sardine as bait for lobster extremely difficult. sardine fishery of the West Coast of California, the team does not consider that scoring issue c. (recovery and rebuilding) should be scored.
2.1.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the team’s reasoning.
2.1.3 No No No Note that the SG score (70) on the summary of The scoring errors have been Scores (page 71) is different that the SG Score corrected. (75) on the Evaluation Table (page 104) and condition indicator (page 154) New information referring to the status of the northern stock The northern stock of sardine is presently has been added to the closed to fishing in the USA and Canada due to backround, (See Section 3.4.4) low biomass resulting from a series of 4 years and in PI 2.1.1. Information with very low recruitment. This series is the regarding management is same years as the California drought and is addressed in PI 2.1.2. However, thought to be primarily due to environmental in the light of new information variation. The Ensenada sardine fishery takes about what the word “sardine” sardine from both the northern stock and the means for the lobster fishers, central Baja stock: with the northern stock some information is needed on landings being primarily in months with colder the composition of the catch of SST. The management of the Ensenada sardine the main small pelagic fishery fishery has taken no action to reduce the along the west coast of the landings of the northern stock. Peninsula. Because bait from Ensenada comes from the The Team does not appear to be aware of the commercial small pelagic fishery present, very well documented, low biomass of and the local catch takes places the northern stock of sardine and the fact that as regular small pelagic fishing, the fishery has been shutdown in the US and we are assuming that the Canada and that Mexico continues to harves species composition in the this depressed sardine stock. lobster bait catch follows closely the species composition in the Based on the fact that there has been no commercial fishery. A attempt to reduce the landings of the recommendation has been depressed northern sardine stock in the issued on this regard. Ensenada fishery it appears that under the MSC guidelines that a SG 75 is not warranted.
2.2.1 Yes Yes NA The bycatch in the lobster fishery is relatively No action or response small (Tables 5 and 7) and I agree with the necessary. Team’s justification of 2.2.1.a
The catches and population status of horn sharks and swell sharks is not known. These
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 170 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
species are considered to be main species; however, the team discusses them in the bycatch section. There is not enough information on these two species in the report to allow any assessment of them.
2.2.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the justifications for this element No action or response and agree that since there is no strategy in necessary. place the SG80 is required.
2.2.3 Yes No No The bycatch sampling has been quite extensive The massive samplings (see and a high percentage of the fishing effort is section 3.3.6 and footnote p22) sampled (Table 3). However, the mix of do not record non-target sampling methods is not well described and it is species data. The objective of not possible for a reader to determine the these sampling is to collect data proportion of the samples that are from high the target species (see section quality fishery-independent sampling (i.e. the 3.3.6 and footnote p22). The massive sampling) vs lower quality sampling text in section 3.4.2 was (i.e. commercial samples taken at landings and changed to reflect that. logbooks). Based on the numbers of lobsters Research conducted by Shester sampled in the massive sampling (>700,000) I presents data of one fishing would assume that this fishery independent season (2006/07) while sampling, and associated bycatch sampling, monitoring system put in place would generally be extensive enough to give a by FEDECOOP has data for three SG 80 score to this element. However, I have fishing season and greater not seen the detailed bycatch information sampling effort. The assessment taken in the massive sampling. team and the client recognized that improvements in the The Shester (2008) study observed 4,940 trap collection of bycatch species hauls and found 40 bycatch species; in contrast data with logbooks are needed the logbook data sampled and average of and a milestone under condition 865,938 trap hauls and only found 11 bycatch 2-2 have been set. species. Clearly the logbook data are not of sufficient quality with regards to species indentification and/or reporting to be used to assess the bycatch in the lobster fishery.
The huge difference between the number of cormorants captured per trap haul (3.4) in the Shester (2008) study and the logbook data (0.0001) suggests that the logbook data have considerable bias in reporting marine birds. However, I agree with the team that the numbers of cormorants per trap haul in the Shester (2008) study are probably a considerable overestimate for the entire fishery.
I disagree with the Team’s SG 75 score. The
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 171 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
fishery-independent results (Shester (2008) differ widely from the logbook results which suggests that the SG score should be lower. I also do not think that the conditions are adequate to resolve the very large differences between the logbook data and the research data; additional research studies on bycatch are certainlhy warranted.
2.3.1 Yes Yes NA There have been recent whale deaths and gear No action or response entrapments caused by Dungeness crab trap necessary. lines in the U.S. However, I am aware of no such deaths or entrapments of whales in the California or Baja California lobster fisheries. The team was not presented with sampling evidence showing marine mammal/lobster fishery interactions. In the absence of evidence showing gear interactions with marine mammals the team scored this element at SG90. I have no information that would suggest a different score.
2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Some measures are in effect to prevent No action or response interacrtions between the lobster fishery and necessary. marine mammals. The logbook information suggests that recent interactions have been minimal; however, the use of voluntary information suggests that the element cannot be scored at the SG100 level. The development of closed areas and seasonal closures partially designed to protect marine mammals does suggest that the SG score should be above SG80.
2.3.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the teams justifiations and scores No action or response for this element. necessary.
2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Shester (2008) concluded that “lobster traps do No action or response not appear to cause any short-term changes to necessary. benthic habitat” and he stated that there was “no mortality due to ghost fishing”. However, anyone who has fished lobsters knows that there is occasional mortality to fishes that enter the traps. As there was no other evidence suggesting that there were significant habitat impacts and given the sparce number of studies addressing this issue I agree with the Teams SG 90.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 172 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
2.4.2 Yes Yes NA The fishing mortality rates are very high (i.e. F> The impact of this fishery on the 1.5 for lobsters just entering the fishery) and habitat has been proved to be there are now extremely few old/large lobsters low due to the characteristics of (see length frequencies in Figure 3). There is no the fising operation and the use assessment of the role of large lobsters in the of traps. The draft management near-shore ecosystem and no strategy or plan for this fishery includes sampling programs designed to assess this role. measures for reduce impacts on I disagree with the SG95 score. It is too high for critical or sensitive zones. The a habitat program that appears to have little near-shore ecosystem have data, few published studies and no apparent been relative weill studied in strategy for aquiring this information. the area of fishery. Some of them are cited in References in The material presented in this report does not this document and other have allow any real assessment of the large age- been conducted by academic dependent fishing mortality rates nor is it institutions including national possible to compare the fishing mortality rate CICIMAR, CIBNOR, CICESE, the of the lobsters > 82.5 mm CL vs that of the total Escuela Nacional de Ciencias population. Biológicas and foreign universities like Stanford University, etc.
2.4.3 Yes Yes NA See comments in 2.4.2. The studies most likely The assessment team have not to assess the absence of large lobsters from the received updated information habitat require marine protected areas. I note on the progress of those with the team’s statement “ The Vizcaino studies, therefore SG100 is not Reserve management program states that met. studies of habitats and monitoring will be conducted but progress on that was not provided to the team”. If this were done, there would be potential to meet the SG 100.
2.5.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the team’s justifications. No action or response necessary.
2.5.2 Yes No No Most of the fishery is carried out within El While there Vizcaino Reserves Vizcaino Reserve. However there is no has not impose spatial close indication of any of the Reserve is closed to areas in the fishing grounds an fishing for lobsters. The Team should address seasonal close is in place.(see this and include the percentage, if any, of section 3.3.5 and Figure 9). lobster habitat closed to lobster fishing.
Ecosystem consideration involve longer time scales than other segments of this report. The size limit regulation that was set to allow lobsters to spawn one or more times before being recruited to the fishery have, due primarily to the very high fishing mortality rate, the possibility for selection for slow growing lobsters. This possibility could be reduced by
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 173 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
reducing the mortality rate and/or establishing areas where lobsters can achieve their original size and age structure If there are no areas closed to lobster fishing I would score this element at SG 60. If there are areas closed to lobster fishing and studies are planned to assess lobster populations inside and outside of protected areas I would score this element SG 80.
2.5.3 Yes No No As stated in 2.5.2 the report does not appear to See comments for 2.5.2 mention marine reserves where lobsters are protected. Without this information I am unable to score this element above SG 60. The information required to accurately assess the ecosystem response to the lobster fishery is dependent upon having areas closed to lobster fishing.
3.1.1 Yes Yes NA There does appear to be a well thought out No action or response management system at the National level; necessary. however, this is element is beyond my background. There is little description of the mid-level management structure that would be responsible for insuring that specific fisheries are operating in agreement with the national standards.
3.1.2 Yes Yes NA The Team did a very good job at describing the No action or response present situation. necessary.
3.1.3 Yes Yes NA The long term objectives are well described and No action or response clearly in line with the establishment of necessary. sustainable fisheries. The Bmsy standards are quite conservative with a generic Bmsy at half of Bo. The specific mechinisms for achieving the standards are is not obvious from the material in the report.
3.1.4 Yes Yes NA Although the long-term objectives are to No action or response maintain a sustainable fishery the present necessary. management does not include annual control rules based on biomass, stock fecundity or CPUE. In additon there appears to be no pre- decision on what management measures will be used if fishery indicators show a decline in
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 174 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
the biomass of the stock. Therefore a SG 100 is not warranted, in agreement with the team’s score.
3.2.1 Yes No No The general objectives of sustainable The assessment team shares the exploitation of the resource are described. The dissapointment of not having a documents, mentioned in the team’s evaluation document that consolidates not of this element, that describe specific only objectives but the general objectives are not available to me. Without strategy. This is one of the main these documents I was only able to give this weaknesses of the fishery. Still, element a SG 60. Specific management in terms of the requirements in measures seems to be a weakness throughout PI 3.2.1 it only becomes a the entire report. limitation at the SG100 level.
3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Presently management is primarily based on No action or response SSS regulations and effort limitation. The fact necessary. that the cooperatives have reduced fishing effort in response to the recent decrease in CPUE shows that this management system is operating and responsive to fishery indicators.
3.2.3 Yes Yes NA The cooperatives have, in the absence of No action or response govenmental monitoring, compliance and necessary. enforcement, undertaken organization and funding this work through community committees.
3.2.4 No No No There is no Research Plan. Not clear the intention of the reviewer with the 3 No. At the SG60 level, there’s clearly some research conducted and the information is available. There’s certainly no Research Program nor the results of research are distributed timely. That justifies the final score of 60 for this PI and conditions to develop a research program and to be more efficient in distributing results.
3.2.5 Yes Yes NA I have not seen the material provided to the No action or response team; however, the fact that the cooperatives necessary. have reduced fishing effort in response to fishery indicators shows that this element is partially fulfilled.
Any Other Comments
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 175 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Comments Conformity Assessment Body Response
It would be helpful if the chapter headings in the body of the report were the same as those in the performance indicators. At a minimum the first numbers in the chapter headings should conform to the three principals. For example on page 49: 3.5. Principal Three: Management System Background. For clarity it should read 3.0. Principal Three:
6.4.1. Peer Reviewer 2
Has the assessment team arrived at an appropriate Conformity Assessment Body Response conclusion based on the evidence presented in the Yes assessment report? Justification: The assessment team gave a score of 80 for Principle 1, Assessment teams work with the material which is consistent with the evidence provided by the customer. they are provided with before the onsite However, the assessment team should consider the publication of visit. We recognize that this system may Chavez and Gorostieta (2010 ) for additional information and be leave critical information that sometimes able to define the status of the stock. Differences in the stock status may alter the evaluation result. However, it can be the result of considering the entire population beyond the would be economically impossible for the Unit of Assessment therefore, other users may be impairing the client to pay for the time required to do an resource. Therefore, the recommendation made by the team on exhaustive search of the literature. The developing a program for additional information to analyze and report suggested by the reviewer can discuss the hypothesis that the stock harvested by the UoA is a self- however be included in the future sustaining part of a metapopulation will be crucial. surveillance audits. The certification team should give an explanation of why Isla Guadalupe was not included (withdrawn) in this re- certification. We understand that withdrawal of the Guadalupe fraction was a merely strategic decision by the client who may have considered that the catch from the island was not a substantial part of the fishery (0.5%) and required more effort to document than they were willing to work on.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 176 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes Conformity Assessment Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Justification: The conditions recommended by the assessment team No action or response necessary. are appropriate to improve performance of the fishery. The fishery has been managed well, but has remained at the same level of performance in recent years. However, in order to have better achievements, it may be necessary to include additional conditions and more ambitious benchmarks (e.g. SG90).
PI Has all the Does the Will the Justification Conformity Assessment Body relevant information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by Response referring to specific scoring issues informatio and/or improve the and any relevant documentation n available rationale fishery’s where possible. Please attach been used used to score performance to the additional pages if necessary. to score this Indicator SG80 level? this support the (Yes/No/NA) Indicator? given score? (Yes/No) (Yes/No)
1.1.1 Ye Yes NA The certifier gave a score of The assessment team s 90, which could be high, given recognizes the need to the degree of uncertainty improve the assessment associated with the stock methodology and will consult assessment provided by the the suggested reference. client. The certifier could However this PI is consult the article: Chavez, E. exclusively about the and M. Gorostieta: outcome status of the stock Bioeconomic assessment of relative to a) the level where the red spiny lobster fishery. recruitment is impared and CalCOFI Reports, Vol. 51, b) the biomass level 2010. It is necessary to producing MSY. As improve the assessment mentioned above, in future methods to get a better sureveillance audits the understanding of the dynamics assessment team will of the resource. evaluate the additional evidence suggested by the reviewer.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 177 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
1.1.2 Yes No Yes Given the information provided The assessment team by the client, the score given understands and partially by the certifier (70) is low. I agrees with the reviewer’s agree with condition 1.1; opinion on reference points. However, from my point of The definition of indicators view, there is an attempt to related to MSY as limits is introduce a target reference also embedded in the point (TRP) above the MSY, UNCLOS and a few certainly focused on management agencies use increasing economic them. The MSC system is performance (e.g. the not opposed to that Document, section 3.3.6, page approach and in fact the CR 28 mentions: “…during the considers that it is a 2008-09 season when the precautionary approach that fishing season was closed 10 allows for better scores. days earlier than planned” ). However, under the MSC Absolutely, as indicated in CR V 1.3, the basic Condition 1.1. the client needs definition of LRP is that one to define explicit TRP and which " is set above the level LRP. What the certifier is at which there is an identifying as TRP (BMSY), I appreciable risk of impairing certainly consider it as an reproductive LRP. Quinn and Derisso capacity”. (1999, pp. 459) mention that a LRP indicates a limit to avoid On the other hand, “The falling into an undesired target condition (e.g. below BMSY); reference point is such that while a TRP is a desired level. the Therefore, my understanding stock is maintained at a level of the stock assessment consistent with BMSY or provided by the client is that some measure or surrogate the LRP is the BMSY, i.e., the with similar intent or fishery will not be under the outcome.” BMSY. What is missing in the analysis is to define the TRP, The team is well aware that which could be, for example a the choice of reference biomass level above the MSY points under one approach that could increase the or the other is a matter of economic performance (e.g. opinion based on multiple Maximum Ecponimic Yield – factors. We also understand see Figure 11 from the Red that for the MSC, a stock Book, 2006). PI 1.1.2b should under the Bmsy has the be SG 80, and an overall potential to be exploited score of 80. sustainably although it is required to bring it back to or above the MSY based target. As stock thus, can be at a biomass level as low as its recruitment capacity allows and control rules must reduce fishing effort as this limit is approached.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 178 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Specifically, the lobster fishery in Baja California has not made explicit official declarations about what these referece points are. All we have is a broad discussion in a document that is marginally binding (it only applies as long as the Carta Nacional Pesquera makes reference to definitions in the Red Book). The Red Book indicates: “Para definir el estatus (Est) del recurso a partir de los modelos de producción excedente el primer paso consistió en conocer si la biomasa actual BtActual (1999-2000) es mayor o menor a Bo/2”. And this definition is directly linked to the decision rule presented in the background and rationale of PI 1.2.2. Such definition allows for interpretation that Bo/2, the biomass level that under the assumptions of the logistic model with shape parameter equal to one determines MSY and in the Red Book is called “Optimum” level. As it is seen, some level of basic interpretation of concepts and definitions are necessary to reach conclusions on the reference points which makes judgment a step more difficult. In addition, the Red Book adds that under an alternative modeling approach, the target reference point “would be” the maximum economic yield. This approach although equally valid is not taken as the “official” choice only because the control rule uses Bmsy as the optimal
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 179 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
level.a
1.1.3
1.2.1 Ye Yes No I agree with the score given by This comment doesn’t refer s the certifier team (80). The to Conditions because there Condition 1.2 should say: are no conditions associated The harvest strategy must be to PI 1.2.1. It refers to the complemented with the rationale of PI 1.2.1 SIa. The definition of limit and target suggested additions have reference points and that the been incorporated to the text control rule implemented as in the evaluation table. described in PI 1.2.2. The strategy should explicitly mention the mechanisms for periodic review and improvement, as needed.
1.2.2 Ye Yes Yes I agree with the score given by No action or response s the certifier (65). necessary.
1.2.3 Ye Yes NA I agree with the score given by No action or response s the certifier (90). necessary.
1.2.4 Ye Yes No I agree with the score given by No condition is possible s the certifier (85). The certifier because the PI is above should include a condition SG80. The assessment related to the improvement of team has however added a the stock assessment, due to Recommendation related to inconsistencies between the the inconsistency issue two assessments. brought up by the reviewer.
2.1.1 Ye Yes NA I agree with the score given by Thanks. No furhter s the certifier (80). comments.
2.1.2 Ye Yes NA I agree with the score given by Thanks. No furhter s the certifier (80). comments.
2.1.3 Ye Yes Yes I agree with the score given by Thanks. No furhter s the certifier (75). comments.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 180 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
2.2.1 Ye Yes No I agree with the score given by A condition is set in PI 2.2.3. s the certifier (80). However, the certifier should include a condition that the client provides evidence on the handling and release (alive) of bycatch.
2.2.2 Ye Yes NA I agree with the score given by Text has been added to the s the certifier (80). In the rationale. Justification of guidepost (a), the certifier should be more precise (e.g. percentage) when he/she refers to "much lower" number of registered sharks, as well as “low level of bycatch” (guidepost b).
2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the score given by Thanks. No furhter the certifier (75). comments.
2.3.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by Thanks. No furhter the certifier (90). comments.
2.3.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by Thanks. No furhter the certifier (90). comments.
2.3.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by Amended. Thanks the certifier (95). Guidepost c, the certifier should provide the correct name of the Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático (National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change). Also the certifier should mention that Management Plan for losber is a draft: Draft of Lobster Fishery Management Plan.
2.4.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by Thanks. No furhter the certifier (90). comments.
2.4.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by Thanks. No furhter the certifier (95). comments.
2.4.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by Thanks. No furhter the certifier (80). comments.
2.5.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by Thanks. No furhter the certifier (80). comments.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 181 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
2.5.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by Thanks. No furhter the certifier (80) comments.
2.5.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by Thanks. No furhter the certifier (80). comments.
3.1.1 Yes No NA The score given by the certifier The assessment team (90) is low. The score for appreciates the comment to Guidepost “b” should be SG add a relevant regulation 100. The certifier should that pertains to enforcement. consult and include the This however applies to PI Federal Penal Code, whoe 3.2.3 which is pertinent to Article 420, Fraction II Bis the fishery specific says: regulations and in particular “A penalty of one to nine years evaluates compliance, imprisonment and a fine of enforcement and sanctions. three hundred to three PI 3.2.3 has already thousand days of minimum achieved a score at SG100, wage will be imposed on so the reference will only anyone who unlawfully and make the decision more fraudulently capture, solid and will not lead to a transform, collect, transport, change in scores. We have destroy or trade with the included the quotation species: abalone and lobster, provided by the reviewer in no matter whether they are the corresponding section of closed or open for fishing the background. season, and does not have the corresponding authorization.”
The Federal Penal Code in Mexico is the highest level of compliance law, it includes crimes against protected species and only abalone and lobster from commercial species . This is an evidence that the management system incorporates by law a mechanisms for resolutiopn of disputes. Then the overall score should be 95 or 100.
3.1.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by Details of the role of the the certifier (90). The certifier cooperatives affiliated to could mention the active FEDECOP are in the participation of FEDECOOP in “Community level the consultation process to management and decision support the score (evidences: making process” of the minutes of the meetings). background.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 182 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
3.1.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by No action or response the certifier (100). necessary.
3.1.4 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by No action or response the certifier (80). Note: Some necessary. agencies consider public investment in fisheries research as part of subsidies, which in this case would be an incentive consistent with the principles of the MSC 1 and 2.
3.2.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by No action or response the certifier (80). necessary.
3.2.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by More than decision making the certifier (100). The certifier process, the scope of the could include the Article 420 of Penal Code is more the Federal Penal Code. germane to enforcement and sanctions in PI 3.2.3 and has been considered already.
3.2.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the score given by Information on the penal the certifier (100). code has been added to the background.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 183 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
3.2.4 Yes Yes No I agree with the score given by Changes were made to the the certifier (80). The condition based on the Condition 3-1. should say: feedback from the peer “A research plan must be reviewer. developed as a written document that includes a plan for the fishery under assessment, relevant to the scale and intensity and the issues requiring research. The plan must incorporate more and better methodologies to address MSC Principle 2, and improve methodologies for Principle 1. The plan must provide the management system with a strategic approach to research and reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.”
A more precise writing of Condition 3.2 could be: “Establish a formal mechanism to inform the results of research conducted and the management actions to be disseminated to all parties in a timely fashion.”
3.2.5 Yes Yes No I agree with the score given by No condition can be added the certifier (80). The certifier because the score is SG80, could include the Condition: a Recommendation can be “Ensure that the draft of the added instead. lobster fishery management plan contains an appropriate system for management evaluation.”
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 184 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Appendix 3. Stakeholder submissions
1. The report shall include: a. All written submissions made by stakeholders during consultation opportunities listed in CR 27.15.3.1 b. All written and a detailed summary of verbal submissions received during site visits regarding issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment (Reference CR 27.15.3.2) c. Explicit responses from the team to stakeholder submissions included in line with above requirements (Reference CR 27.15.3.3)
(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)
2. The report shall include all written submissions made by stakeholders about the public comment draft report in full, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the public comment draft report that identify: a. Specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made. b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest changes but the team makes no change. (Reference: CR 27.15.4)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 185 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency
(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR ONLY)
1. The report shall include a rationale for determining the surveillance score.
2. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance plan table using the results from assessments described in CR 27.22.1
Table A4: Fishery Surveillance Plan Score from Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 CR Table C3 Category [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site surveillance [e.g. 2 or [e.g. Normal surveillance surveillance surveillance audit & re- more] Surveillance] audit] audit] audit] certification site visit]
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 186 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Appendix 5. Client Agreement
(REQUIRED FOR PCR)
The report shall include confirmation from the CAB that the Client has accepted the PCR. This may be a statement from the CAB, or a signature or statement from the client. (Reference: CR: 27.19.2)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 187 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Appendix 6 Objections Process
(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)
The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 188 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Appendix 6. Additonal Evidence
Appendix 6.1 Summary of non-target species for fishing season 2014/15 for ten Cooperatives.
Catch Species/ Catch % of Species name (individua Category Main/Minor Species Group (kg) TC ls) Octupus vulgaris Octupus NA 9,073 Bycatch O. Bimaculoides Minor Crabs Cancer sp. (mainly) NA 34,158 Bycatch Minor Sharks species 1 Heterodontus francisci NA 4,156 Bycatch Main (vulnerability) Cephaloscyllium shark species 2 NA 1,711 Bycatch ventriosum Main (vulnerability) Vieja Semicossyphus pulcher NA 7,423 Retained Minor Lopon Ophiodon elongatus NA 5,175 Retained Minor
Cabrilla/Verdillo Paralabrax clathratus NA 4,969 Retained P. nebulifer Minor Blanco Caulolatilus princeps NA 2,478 Retained Minor Naranjo Hypspops rubicundus NA 923 Retained Minor Jurel Seriola lalandi NA 332 Retained Minor Roncador Anisotremus davidsoni NA 159 Retained Minor Lenguado Paralichthys spp NA 123 Retained Minor Sebastes mystinus Rocot S. miniatus NA 86 Retained S. caurinus Minor Mojarra Embiotoca jacksoni NA 77 Retained Minor Chololo Kelletia kelletii NA 77 Retained Minor Barbito Umbrina roncador NA 77 Retained Minor Curvina Argyrosomus regius NA 75 Retained Minor Snails Gastropoda NA 2,145 Bycatch Minor Abalone Haliotis sp NA 2 Retained Minor Eel Gymnothorax sp. NA 2,245 Bycatch Minor Sea birds Phalacrocorax sp NA 57 Bycatch Minor Parastichopus Sea cucumbers NA 30 Bycatch parvimensis Minor Sea urchins Strongolycerotus sp. NA - Bycatch Minor Sea stars Acansthaster sp. NA 9 Bycatch Minor Total Bycatch* 58,608.00 75,551 Bycatch Blue lobster Panulirus inflatus NA NA NA Retained Minor Green lobster P. gracilis NA NA NA Retained Minor Sardines Sardinops sagax 1,898,139 39% Bait/Retained Main (volume) (Ensenada)
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 189 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Local Sardines 32% Bait/Retained (Local) 1,553,023 Main (volume) Squid 633 0% Bait/Retained Minor Mackerel Strombus japonicus 57,805 1% Bait/Retained Minor Bonita 5,078 0% Bait/Retained Minor Waste (Carcajes) 3,308 0% Bait/Retained Minor Skypjack 295 0% Bait/Retained (Barrilete) Minor Fish 59,294 1% Bait/Retained Minor Total Bait 3,577,575 Red rock Lobster 1,172,160 24% Target Total Catch Lobster Fishery 4,808,343 * Estimated from Shester as 5% of Total Catch of Lobster Fishery
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 190 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Appendix 6.2 Inspection Record
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 191 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 192 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 193 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 194 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 195 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 196 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
Appendix 6 Client Action Plan Support Letter
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 197 of 199
Mexico Baja California red rock lobster fishery Re-Assessment
End of Report
Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 198 of 199