PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT REPORT

Fishery name: Cancale Bay Atlantic Slipper Limpet Dredge Fishery

Report Title: Public Cooment Draft Report

CAB name and authors’ names: RIGAUD Arthur, GARCIA Macarena, LE PAPE Olivier, FONTENELLE Guy

Client name(s): CLEMENT Pierrick, LE BRAS Quentin

Date: April 2016

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 1

Table of Contents Glossary ...... 4 1 Executive Summary ...... 5 2 Authorship and Peer reviewers ...... 7 3 Description of the fishery ...... 10 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and scope of certification sought ...... 10 3.1.1 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 11 3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) 12 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 13 3.2.1 Background of the fishery ...... 13 3.2.2 Fishing gear and method of the fishery ...... 14 3.2.3 Fishing area ...... 15 3.2.4 Fleet ...... 16 3.2.5 Catch data ...... 16 3.2.6 Discards ...... 18 3.3 Principle One : General information on targeted species ...... 18 3.3.1 Biology of the slipper limpet Crepidula fornicata (Walne, 1956 : Blanchard, 2005) 18 3.3.2 Geographical distribution of the slipper limpet in Europe (Figure 9) ...... 19 3.3.3 The Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel slipper limpet stock ...... 20 3.3.4 Outline of the history and fishery management ...... 23 3.3.5 Information and monitoring ...... 24 3.3.6 Stock assessment ...... 25 3.3.7 Key lower trophic level species (LTL) ...... 25 3.4 Principle Two : Ecosystem Background ...... 26 3.4.1 Primary species ...... 26 3.4.2 Secondary species ...... 34 3.4.3 ETP species interacting with the fishery ...... 35 3.4.4 Habitats ...... 37 3.4.5 Ecosystem ...... 38 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background...... 39 3.5.1 Governance and policy ...... 39 3.5.2 Management system of the fishery ...... 44 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 48 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 48

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 2

4.2 Assessment Methodologies ...... 48 4.3 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 48 4.3.1 Site Visit ...... 48 4.3.2 Consultations ...... 49 4.3.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 53 5 Traceability ...... 56 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 56 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 56 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 57 So far, the fishery lands his catch in only one harbour : Le Vivier-sur-mer (see location in Figure 21). So, there is only one eligible landing point...... 57 6 Evaluation results ...... 57 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 57 6.2 Summary of Scores ...... 58 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 59 6.4 Changes in the fishery before and since the Pre-assessment ...... 60 7 References ...... 61 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 64 Appendix 1.1 Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status ...... 64 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...... 133 Appendix 1.2.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) for Principle 1 ...... 133 Appendix 1.2.2 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) ...... 135 MSC WORKSHEET TABLE PSA 1.1.1 ...... 136 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 137 Table A1.3: Condition 4 ...... 147 Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports ...... 149 Second Peer Reviewer Opinion ...... 156 Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions ...... 168 No information received by stakeholders.Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 168

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 3

Glossary

ALD-SLP: Atlantic Limpet Development - Slipper Limpet Processing CDPMEM 35 : Comité Départemental des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages Marins 35 CNPMEM : Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages Marins CRC : Comité Régional de Conchyliculture CRPMEM : Comité Régional des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages Marins DDTM 35 : Direction Départementale des Territoires Maritimes 35 DIRM / NAMO : Direction Inter Régionale de la Mer Nord Atlantique Manche ouest DPMA : Direction des pêches maritimes et de l'aquaculture - Fisheries and Aquaculture Directorate of the French Ministry for Agriculture and Fisheries F Fishing Mortality FCR Fisheries Certification Requirement FMSY Target reference point for fishing mortality that is expected to drive the stock to levels consistent with BMSY. Flim Limit reference point for fishing mortality that is expected to drive the stock to the biomass limit

Fpa Precautionary reference point of fishing mortality expected to maintain the SSB at the precautionary reference point HCR Harvest Control Rules IFREMER : Institut Français pour l’Exploitation de la Mer ISBF Introduced Species Based Fisheries MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PCDR Public Comment Draft Report PSA Productivity Susceptibility Analysis P1 Principle 1 (MSC) P2 Principle 2 (MSC) P3 Principle 3 (MSC) PI Performance Indicator (MSC) PME : Fishing permit (French acronym, Permis de Mise en Exploitation) UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VMS : Vessel Monitoring System (Balise satellite de suivi des navires de pêche)

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 4

1 Executive Summary

The report provides details of the MSC assessment of the fishery process for the Cancale Bay Atlantic Slipper Limpet Dredge Fishery prepared by the team and the CAB provided to the client and afterwards to the peer reviewers. The fishery meets the MSC scope criteria for Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF). The client covered by the certificate is the client ALD (Atlantic Limpet Development), the “Comité Régional de la Conchyliculture de Bretagne Nord (CRC BN)” (North Brittany Regional Shellfish Farming Committee) as the owner of the unique vessel included in the certification, and the company Cap à l’Ouest (technical operator of the vessel).

The audit team that conducted the assessment against to MSC standard was comprised of the following members from the Certification Body, Bureau Veritas Iberia: Macarena Garcia Silva, Seafood auditor and Scheme Manager for MSC fisheries from Bureau Veritas Iberia, in the role of project coordinator and team leader. Arthur Rigaud from Bureau Veritas, as team member in charge of the traceability section and to support the team leader. The expert team, selected for their stock assessment, ecosystem interactions, and fishery management experience, comprised Olivier Le Pape as expert assessor under Principle 1 and 2 and Guy Fontelle as expert assessor under Principle 3.

The assessment process began in July 2015. Public notice regarding to the launch of the MSC Certification Programme for the fishery was published the 21 st of July 2015. The announcement and timeline were published on the MSC website to report all the steps carried out to get the MSC certification. The announcement template included the names and CVs of the assessment team members and the use of the assessment tree included in V 2.0 of the MSC Fishery Certification Requirements (FCR). However, the CAB requested for variation to the MSC Certification Requirement (CR 7.8.5) to modify the default assessment tree contained in Annex SA of the Fishery Certification Requirements v2.0 with modifications for PI 2.5.2 & 2.5.3 in order to address the ecosystem impacts of the introduced species. The MSC approved the variation request and the modifications were completed (See Appendix 1.1)

The tasks schedule, is identified as assessment timeline and was also published at first. One of the main steps when assessing fishery compliance with the International MSC Standard involves meeting with the stakeholders in order to gather all the relevant information and become aware of any potential issues. The site visit was performed for the week starting September 2 nd , 2015 with selected organisations and individuals with a direct interest in this fishery. The stakeholders involved in the fishery were contacted by telephone and dropping an email to schedule the site visit to prepare the fishery information which is required by the experts.

After the site visit, the team compiled and analysed all the relevant information, as well as the technical, written, and anecdotal resources collected during the visit. Each expert prepared a draft score and justification, and then discussed and weighed up the evidence. Lastly, the team used their judgement to agree on a final score regarding to MSC processes.

The main strengths of this assessment process are listed below: - The client gave sufficient data/information about the fishery (landings data, bycatch, fishing area, harvest strategy report, etc) to the CAB, allowing them to proceed on a global assessment. Most of important stakeholders have been met or phoned during the site visit. Therefore, the assessment is based on recent and updated data/information. - According to the last scientific references, this biomass seems to increase more than the volume of slipper limpet harvested by the fishery each year. - This small fishery, including only one vessel, is very selective, specifically targeting slipper limpet in restricted area and having very few bycatch (<1% weight of total catch, all bycatch species are discarded at sea). - The fishery has neglictable impact on ETP species and habitats of concern (designated under the EC Habitats Directive).

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 5

On the other hand the weaknesses are detailed here in: - There is no scientific monitoring on slipper limpet stock in the area since several years, So the predictions of stock trends have not been updated since 2009. - There is no robust information proving elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives. The lack of long term dataseries, even on basic fishery parameters like an established catch per unit effort CPUE, is one of the major constraints on improving our understanding of slipper limpet stock. - The fact that the fishery is under a legal framework of experimental harvesting and is recent (i.e still evolving in terms of management strategy), the fishery-specific management system is only subject to occasional internal review and the decision-making processes is still in developpement to achieve efficiently the fishery-specific objectives.

Both the assessment team and the Certification Body, Bureau Veritas Iberia, agreed that, on review, the Cancale Bay Atlantic Slipper Limpet Dredge Fishery complies with MSC Principles and Criteria. Therefore, the draft determination is that the fishery should be awarded an MSC Fishery certificate.

The CAB has set four conditions for certification with respect to the Performance Indicators 1.2.2; 1.2.3 ; 3.2.2 ; 3.2.4. In order to be awarded an MSC certificate for the fishery, the applicants must sign a written contract agreeing to develop an Action Plan to fulfil the 'Conditions' issued by the audit team. Details of the conditions are provided in Section 6.3.1 of this report.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 6

2 Authorship and Peer reviewers

Macarena GARCIA as Team Leader Macarena’s academic background includes a Bachelor of Science Degree in Environmental Science from the Madrid Polytechnic University (Spain) and a Master degree in Sustainable Management of Marine and Coastal Systems from Barcelona University (Spain). She was manager in Inemar (Association for innovation in marine resources and sea studies). She has worked as an assistant in the Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, carrying out different projects involving human activities and sea resources. She has been working as seafood auditor for Bureau Veritas Iberia (Agrofood Department) since September 2011, which involves the technical development of private sustainable labels and seafood companies’ policies. She is the lead auditor for Friends of the sea, MSC fisheries full assessment and pre-assessment, the chain of custody, and other quality labels (DOP, Mexillon de Galicia, Pesca de Rías). Currently she is the Scheme Manager of the MSC Fisheries in BVI.

The areas that she is responsible for this assessment are related with the application of her auditing techniques knowledge in the gathering and assessing of information given by stakeholders. Moreover, she will coordinate the assessment team and the MSC full assessment process. Moreover, she will be in charge of the report writing. Finally she will participate in the scoring of the fishery and the rationales for the scores given. She meets the competency criteria established in Annex PC and she has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

Arthur RIGAUD as Team Member Arthur’s academic background includes a Master Degree in 2013 in Fisheries and Marine Ecology from Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Center of Agrocampus Rennes (France). He worked as a junior project manager at the French National Committee for Maritime Fisheries and Fish Farming (CNPMEM-Paris), where he mainly worked on interactions between fishing gears and marine habitats, and on several projects related to fisheries management and marine governance. He has been working as Junior Project Manager for Bureau Veritas France (Agrofood Department) and Oceanic Developpement since April 2015. He is working on projects related to fishery (management, socio-economic and environmental subjects) and Seafood certification (MSC fisheries assessment and other quality labels as Label Rouge and IGP). These experiences allowed him to develop a wide range of professional skills including: monitoring of socio-economic surveys with fishermen and governance stakeholders, statistical analysis, used to international workshop.

The areas that he is responsible for this assessment are related with the application of hir auditing techniques knowledge in the gathering and assessing of information given by stakeholders. Moreover, he has helped with the coordination of the assessment team and the MSC full assessment process. Moreover, he has been in charge of the report writing. Finally he will also participate in the scoring of the fishery and the rationales for the scores given.

He meets the competency criteria concerning current knowledge of the country and the CoC Standard and CoC Certification Requirements, language and local fishery context established in Annex PC and he has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

Dr Olivier LE PAPE as Team Member Dr Olivier LE PAPE is a full associate professor in marine and coastal ecology at the Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Center of Agrocampus Rennes. His research is focused on fish recruitment process, essential fish habitats and anthropogenic pressure in coastal and estuarine systems. He has expertise in data mining, statistics, mathematical modelling, physical/biological coupling in coastal areas, GIS and habitat mapping and is also involved in coastal surveys. He was head of two Phd linked to stock assessment, and stock assessment paper incuding other aspects of life cycle and stressors. He worked for FAO as head of the sub-group COPACE / PACE on non-assessed species (assessing the state of the stock without stock assessment). Moreover he

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 7

worked on several projects (with references) coupling life cycle and stock assessment. He worked on Slipper Limpet stock impact on habitat suitability for flatfish (common sole), effects of the Slipper Limpet stock proliferation on habitat and fish. Olivier has the qualifications and competencies required in order to be responsible of Principle 1 and Principle 2.

Dr Guy FONTENELLE as Team Member Since October 2012, Dr Guy Fontenelle is now an Emeritus Professor at the Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Center of Agrocampus Ouest (Rennes). Until then, he was Deputy Director of this Center. For many years, his research has been covered several topics among which fisheries co- management and integrated coastal zone management by using systemic approaches. In particular, he was involved (leader or collaborator) in cross-disciplinary projects (uses and ressources, dynamics, interactions and coordination between fisheries and organizations) on the Bay of St Michel that aimed at promoting adaptive management in such areas. His activities mainly concerned the identification of the interests of co-management approaches to help understand the various perceptions of stakeholders to organize the sharing of their activities. The Bay of St Michel was the first and main area to develop and try to implement this approach (including several references).

Guy has the qualifications and competencies required in order to be Responsible of Principle 3.

Peer Reviewers selected by the Peer Review College

Dr Andrew Hough, marine Environmental Consultant. Andrew has a PhD in marine ecology from the University of Wales, Bangor (1987-90). He has been involved in marine, coastal and freshwater environmental management since 1991, including management of fishery impacts on ecosystems and marine conservation biology, principally in European inshore waters. He was manager of Moody Marine operations within Moody International Certification from 1999 to 2011 with particular responsibility for the implementation of MSC Certification procedures and development of MSC methodologies. He has acted as lead assessor on a large proportion of MSC pre assessments and main assessments during this time, and subsequently as team member and/or lead auditor for various assessments. This has involved stock assessment analysis, evaluation of ecosystem effects and management effectiveness of groundfish, pelagic and shellfish fisheries in various administrations around the world. He now works as a freelance environmental/fishery management consultant and auditor, consultancy projects include certification-related policy advice to the Association of Sustainable Fisheries

Julian Addison , currently he is working as independent fisheries consultant specializing in shellfish and inshore fisheries. After 28 years at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), which is the UK Government’s marine science agency for environment, fisheries and aquatic science, he left the organisation to move to France work independently.

He has relevant skills and experience which includes nearly 30 yearsexperience of stock assessment and provision of management advice on shellfish and inshore fisheries, an international reputation in the field of crustacean population dynamics and assessment, extensive knowledge of the shellfish and inshore fisheries industry and liaising with fishers and other stakeholder groups, knowledge of shellfisheries management regimes worldwide, effective oral and written communication skills and winning of contracts under competitive tender.

In the year since leaving Cefas, my time has been split between consultancy work and collaborative research, primarily the completion of peer-reviewed manuscripts on shellfish population dynamics and inshore fisheries. Recent consultancy work includes : • A review of the stock assessment model for blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay, USA as part of the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) peer review panel

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 8

• Peer review of MSC assessments of lobster and coldwater prawn fisheries in Europe • Advice to ex-colleagues at Cefas and UK Government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on shellfish stock assessment and inshore fisheries management. His research interests includes: development of methods for shellfish stock assessment, including fishery-independent methods of estimating abundance, crustacean behaviour in relation to capture in fishing gear, development of environmentally friendly fishing gear technology for both trawl and molluscan dredge fisheries and the environmental footprint of inshore fisheries.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 9

3 Description of the fishery

3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and scope of certification sought Bureau Veritas Iberia confirms that the fishery is within the MSC scope certification for the relevant assessment. As part of the preparation to an assessment following MSC Principles and Criteria for a sustainable fishery, the client and the certification body have to establish a clear and concerted definition of the Unit of assessment (UoA) and the Unit of Certification (UoC), prior to the beginning of the assessment.

The MSC Vocabulary describes the UoA as “ The target stock(s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock, and any fleets or group of vessels, or individual fishing operators or other eligible fishers that are included in an MSC Fishery assessment”.

On the other hand, the UoC is “The target stock(s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock, and any fleets, or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators that are covered by an MSC fishery certificate. ”

For this fishery the UoC is equal to UoA because there are not other eligible fishers.

The CAB reviewed the data available and concluded that the UoA is adapted and consistent with MSC Principles. The UoA for the dredge fishery of the Atlantic slipper limpet in the bay of Cancale is defined as follows:

Target species Atlantic slipper limpet, Crepidula fornicata (Crépidule in French) Stock Stock of the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel – Bay of Cancale – Bay of Granville. Figure 1. Although documented and based on research studies, the definition of the Atlantic slipper limpet stock remains approximate (see the detailed stock analysis at section 3.3.1). Based on the assertions of the consulted scientists and the research studies they rely on, the team stated that the perimeter of the Atlantic slipper limpet stock was as follows: Stock of the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel – Bay of Cancale – Bay of Granville. Fishing area The fishery occurs in the Bay of Cancale, more precisely in an experimental fishery perimeter defined under the Arrêté préfectoral n°2013-6540 (Prefectoral Decree - see Figure 1). Area defined this way are located along the 12 nautic miles coastline, in ICES area VIIe, in the perimeter delineated by the following GPS coordinates [48°41’41 North – 001°44’64 West] ; [48°40’03 North - 001°44’64 West] ; [48°40’03 North - 001°40’54 West] (but also within “a perimeter that corresponds to a 300 m wide strip North of the deep water flat oyster leases of the Bay of the Mont St Michel and identified by the mollusc farming cadaster . Figure 1 Fishing method Oyster dredge Fleet Only one vessel : the PAPY (SM 893866) Management The Bay of Cancale Atlantic slipper limpet dredging fishery is managed by system the Territories and Sea Departmental Directorate (Direction Départementale des Territoires et de la Mer or DDTM 35 in French) and the North Brittany Regional Shellfish Farming Committee (Comité Régional de la Conchyliculture de Bretagne Nord or CRC BN in French). The management system is based on Decree n°2013-6540, amended by Decree n°2015-11700 which states the allowance for experimental sampling of Atlantic slipper limpet in the Bay of the Mont St Michel.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 10

Client group This client group is composed of the company Atlantic Limpet Development (ALD), the North Brittany Regional Shellfish Farming Committee (ship owner) and the company Cap à l’Ouest (fishing operator). Other eligible In the Bay of Cancale, only one vessel is equiped for Atlantic slipper limpet fishermen fishing, the PAPY (SM 893866). Therefore, no other vessel is eligible to the certification was identified.

The UoA was determined so as to respond to client assessment requirements. As for now, one unique vessel, equipped with a dredge, is covered by the certificate.

At the beginning of the assessment, the client considered that, by that time, there was no other fishermen or fishing vessels eligible to the certification thus to the sharing of the certificate.

Granville Cancale

Mt St Michel

Figure 1 : Geographical map of the Bay of Cancale and delineation of Atlantic slipper limpet experimental fishing leases in the bay (sources: crpbn.fr and CRC Bretagne Nord). In accordance with Section 2 of the Arrêté n°2013-6540 of June, 14th 2013, « experimental sampling activity takes place in the Bay of the Mont Saint -Michel, North of the deep water flat oyster leases of the Bay of the Mont St Michel and identified by the mollusc farming cadaster ». 3.1.1 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries MSC defines enhanced fisheries as follows: any activity that aims at achieving or supporting the recruitment, or improving the survival and the growth of one or more aquatic organisms, or increasing the total production or the production of some elements of the fishery beyond a level considered as sustainable by natural processes. This may imply reconstitution, habitat modification, unwanted

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 11

species extermination, fecundation or any combination of several of these practices (MSC Certification Requirement, Version 2.0).

The assessed fishery is a wild catch fishery and does not correspond to the definition afore. This fishery is not considered as « enhanced ».

3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) MSC defines introduced species based fisheries as : any fishery that targets a mollusc or fish species which was transported and introduced by human activity, accidentally or intentionnally, in an aquatic environment out of endemic range.

To be considered as an ISBF, fishery must fulfil contextual criteria listed in Table 2 of MSC Fishery Certification Requirements (FCR), Version 2.0, and presented hereafter: A) Irreversibility of introduction into a new location i. The introduced species has a large size population (similar or larger than the size of other native species populations which occupy similar ecological niches in the new location) ii. The distribution of the species expanded beyond its initial introduction in the new location. iii. Proofs demonstrate that the species cannot be exterminated from the location by known means without tremendous ecological, economic and/or social consequences. B) Introduction review i. Species was introduced in the new location prior to 1993. The same year, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which comprises measures on introduced species was signed. ii. If the introduction occured after the CBD year of ratification, any fishery is potentially considered as an ISBF to the unique condition the introduction was not deliberate and happened at least 20 years prior to the date of the MSC standard assessment demand. C) No further introduction i. No introduction of the introduced species is underway in the location considered for the certification (it means that the species is now fully autonomous in its new location).

The Atlantic slipper limpet fishery in the Bay of Cancale responds to these 3 criteria that defines an ISBF:

A) Irreversibility of introduction into a new location : Introduction of the Atlantic slipper limpet in the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel (including the Bay of Cancale) is irreversible considering the colossal size of its population and its fast expansion (Blanchard, 1997; Blanchard, 2009). There is actually no possibility to eradicate Atlantic slipper limpet living along French coastlines. B) Introduction review : As soon as the mid-1970s, scientifical observations identified the presence of Atlantic slipper limpet in the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel (Aubin, 1979; Kostecki et al ., 2011), well before 1993 and the ratification of the CBD. C) No further introduction : It was proven that limpet populations living along French coastlines ensure their own reproduction cycle since the species has been introduced (Blanchard, 2005). No other exogenous input of Atlantic slipper limper has been observed. Still, its internal diffusion was favored by shellfish dredging fishermen which discarded this by-catch species overboard.

The Atlantic slipper limpet fishery in the Bay of Cancale may then be considered as an ISBF.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 12

3.2 Overview of the fishery

3.2.1 Background of the fishery Several valuation attempts of the Atlantic slipper limpet were undertaken since the 1990’s, but the main blockage encountered by these projects was the separation of meat and shell. The company ALD-SLP, based in Cancale, was created in 2008 with the will to industrialize the shelling of the Atlantic slipper limpet, and to valorize separately meat and shell. To do so, an industry was built. It was innovative in its globality both technically (fishing, industrial separation), administratively and commercialy speaking.

During the first four years (2008-2012), the mollusc farming partners brought bags of limpet collected when they cleaned their oyster parks. The unevenness, quality and quantity of these Atlantic slipper limpet inputs were unsufficient to allow the company ALD-SLP conducting Research & Development tasks. But since June 2012, harvest is performed by oyster barges (vessel PAPY) specially equipped for Atlantic slipper limpet exploitation. This investment of the North Brittany Regional Committee for Shellfish Farming (CRC) enabled significant progress in projects of the ALD-SLP company which desired to commercialize this resource once shelled and processed. In fact, this ship allows regular supply, controlled in terms of quality thanks to a rigourous selection of the fishing zones, but also in terms of quantity.

On June, 13th 2013, the prefecture of Ille-et-Vilaine ratified a prefectoral decree allowing experimental sampling of Atlantic slipper limpet. This authorization, valid for up to five years, then gives a legal framework to the Bay of Cancale limpet harvesting management. The fishery complies to the appropriate states agencies, including the Ille-et-Vilaine Departmental Delegation for Marine Territories (Délégation Départemental des Territoires Marins d’Ille-et-Vilaine) and more particularly the Ille-et-Vilaine Delegation for Sea and Coastline (Délégation de la Mer et du Littoral d’Ille-et-Vilaine) located in Saint-Malo.

In 2014, after 5 years researching and developing the Atlantic slipper limpet shelling process (extraction of the meat from the shell) and improving the quality of the final product (IQF freezing), the company ALD-SLP enlarged the shelling chain in its factory of Cancale, to double the capacity of production, reaching an industrial scale.

For administrative and technical reasons, the vessel PAPY (the only one currently targeting this marine) did not performed any Atlantic slipper limpet sampling between July 2013 and August 2014, causing temporary interruption of the processing factory. When the activity recovery occurred, in September 2014, the fishing dynamics increased gradually, and notably landed volumes of Atlantic slipper limpet, from a 35 tons yearly average (2012-2013 period) to a monthly average of over 100 tons during the period between end-2014 and early-2015 (Figure 2). The number of days at sea per month also almost doubled between these two periods of activity in the fishery (Figure 2).

In Septembre 2015, the 2013 Decree was amended. This new decree ratified the possibility for any fishing company to set up a boat for Atlantic slipper limpet harvesting within leases defined by the 2013 Decree (more details on the fishery management framework at part 3.5.1.1). Thus, the ownership of the vessel PAPY switched from the Nord Brittany CRC to the company « Cap à l’Ouest ». The latter has committed into increasing the monthly volume of Atlantic slipper limpet sampling to reach the objective of 20tons/fishing day, 20 days/month, or about 5 000 tons of Atlantic slipper limpet per year, from 2016 on.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 13

Figure 2 : Time series of Bay of Cancale Atlantic slipper limpet fishery landings, in tons. Figures in red shows the number of day spent at sea per month for the vessel PAPY (Sources: North Brittany CRC and ALD company data).

3.2.2 Fishing gear and method of the fishery In the Bay of Cancale, limpet is fished using dredge. The limpet fishery is achieved using an oyster barge, owned by the North-Brittany CRC and currently operated by the company « Cap à l’Ouest ». The « Papy », registered at St Malo maritime district (SM-893866), was specially equipped by the CRC for Atlantic slipper limpet extraction in the Bay of Cancale (Figure 3).

Figure 3 : Pictures of the vessel Papy during dredge fishing operation in June 2015 (on the left) and of a dredge used for Atlantic slipper limpet harvest (on the right). Source : ALD-SLP

This 24 meters long boat is equipped with two 2 meters-wide opening oyster dredges (Figure 3 and 5). Dredge unloading is performed in an hopper that allows a first manual sorting of the largest foreign objects and bycatch (oyster shell, animals, plants). The load then goes through a rotative washer that cleans the chains of Atlantic slipper limpet from mud or sand residues, or the microfauna associated to the colonized reef. Atlantic slipper limpets then arrive in a geobox which is placed in the stocking area at the front of the vessel. Vessel operations are schematized on Figure 4. Once geoboxes are filled (20 tons), the vessel makes for Le-Vivier-sur-Mer to land its load.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 14

Figure 4 : Schematic representation of equipment and operation onboard the vessel. Source : ALD-SLP

Figure 5 : Schematic representation of the deployment of the two 2 meters wide each oyster dredges. 3.2.3 Fishing area In the Bay of Cancale, harvested area (Figure 1) are located North of flat oyster leases, where oyster farmers tend to discard limpet collected during the cleaning of their oyster parks, but also on the Eastern colonization line. Microbiologically speaking, fishing zones are among the healthiest and are classified “A” according to the IFREMER health ranking. Bathymetry range locally from 5 to 20 m deep. Leases are composed of highly colonized area but some also are less dense (along the colonization line), where they are targeted by fishing in order to regulate siltation of bottoms caused by limpet.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 15

The fishery perimeter comprises a small zone South of the limpet geographical distribution area at scale of the Normano-Breton Gulf (Figure 6).

One must take into account that the lease area granted for fishing at this time (Figure 1) only represent a very small part of the total superficy of this potential fishing area.

Figure 6 : Limpet geographical distribution area at Normano-Breton Gulf scale in 2011 and localization of UoA perimeter.

3.2.4 Fleet The fleet included in the UoA is composed of a single vessel (Table 1) as it is the only one specificaly equiped for limpet harvest.

Table 1 : Fleet harvesting limpet (updated in November 2015, CRC Bretagne Nord)

Vessel name Home port Registration number

PAPY SM 893866

3.2.5 Catch data To explain how data on catch are collected, it is first usefull to briefly describe the main organizations involved in this process. More detailed data are listed below:

• Departmental Directory for Territories and Sea (Direction Départementale des Territoires et de la Mer or DDTM) – State service in charge of the sustainable development of marine, coastal and agricultural local industries, of natural risks management and of transports (Department of Ille-et-Vilaine, 35) • Delegation for Sea and Coastline (Délégation à la Mer et au Littoral or DML 35 for the department of Ille-et-Vilaine) – this body is a part of the DDTM 35. It is in charge of the

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 16

monitoring, the control and the application of management measures regarding all fishing activities in the department of Ille-et-Vilaine (35). • North Brittany Regional Committee for Mollusc Farmers (Comité Régional de la Conchyliculture de Bretagne Nord) – Professional body, owner of the unique vessel (PAPY) included in the UoA until Summer 2015. Limpet fishery operators in Cancal are member of this organization. It is in charge of harvesting data collection and transmit an annual account of harvest to the DDTM 35.

As previously mentioned (Section 3.2.1) the limpet fishery has an experimental fishing status defined under the 7 Sections of the Decree n°2013-6540 of June, 14 th 2013. Section 5 notably stipulates that vessels harvesting limpet must record places, dates and times of fishing operations on a form and for each sampling. Limpet quantities and weight estimations of discarded by-catches are also to be mentioned on the same form.

To summarize, all catch data are collected by PAPY vessel operators (the new shipowner being the company « Cap à l’Ouest ») and transmitted to the North Brittany CRC in charge of compiling these data and establishing a yearly harvesting review, according to Section 6 of Decree n°2013-6540. This section stipulates that the yearly harvesting review must also defines the area exploited during the past year (geographical coordinates) and mentions « quantity of limpets actually drawn from it during the past year », « the description of the use of harvested limpets », and « harvesting costs and profits resulting from the sale of limpets to processors ». Harvesting data are compiled since June 2012 in a database which lists the tonnage of limpet caught and the number of by-catch species individuals brought onboard during each fishing operation.

One must take into account that no TAC or quota exist in the Bay of Cancale limpet fishery, as this fishery benefit from an experimental limpet sampling authorization using dredges (authorization delivered to the North Brittany CRC and the CRPMEM of Britanny, Section 1 of Decree n°2013-6540), in order to counter the expansion of this species in the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel et to restore the quality of marine bottoms.

Capture data for the limpet fishery are summarized in Table 2 below :

Table 2 : Limpet landings in the Bay of Cancale, from June 2012 to June 2015

Year Total landing s by the fishery (in Number of fishing days tons) 2012 209 22 (June – December) 2013 230 21 (January - June) 2014 351 17 (September – December) 2015 671 33 (January - June)

A range of scientific researchs also allowed collection of additional data on fishery captures and biology of the harvested species. This is notably the case for the report Le Bras (2013) which, during several campaigns onboard of the vessel « PAPY », collected and analyzed data on bycatch in the fishery. L’Ifremer also achieved several limpet sampling campaigns (between 1996 and 2003) in the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel in order to qualify and to quantify the evolution of the limpet population in the bay (Blanchard, 2004, Le Mao, 2007, Blanchard 2009).

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 17

3.2.6 Discards According to existing decree, fishery operators are strictly prohibited from discarding limpets to the sea. This measure is justified by the fact that limpet discards on the way back from the fishing area after sorting operations onboard of vessels contribute to the dissemination of limpets chains notably on sandy bottoms the species would not naturally colonize otherwise, these chains acting as fixing support for new recruits. Discards of molluscs or undersized mussels (from shellfish farming sorting for the latter) on sea bottom favor the fixation of larvae by providing them with a base. Furrows caused by gear retain limpet chains and allow them to form packs (Blanchard et Hamon, 2006).

Besides, the Decree (Section 4) stipulates that « the only catches authorized are limpets, all other species are excluded. Bycatches must be discarded without delay ». Consequently, any aquatic organism other than limpet must be discarded by vessel crew.

3.3 Principle One : General information on targeted species

3.3.1 Biology of the slipper limpet Crepidula fornicata (Walne, 1956 : Blanchard, 2005) The Atlantic slipper limpet (Crepidula fornicata, Linnaeus, 1758) is a filter-feeder gastropod mollusc belonging to the family of Calyptraeides, originally from the North-American Atlantic coast (Figure 7). After a short pelagic phase while in larval stage, it lives fixed by its foot on any solid substrate it might encounter (rock, shell, etc.).

Figure 7 : Pictures of limpet Crepidula fornicata assembly

The limpet is a protandric hermaphrodite: male during the first part of its life before turning female. It has the specifity of piling and by doing so forming chains of 5 to 6 individuals (Figure 7). The oldest individuals, at the base of the chain, are females while the younger ones, at the end of the chain, are males. Secondary chains may establish on a primary chain.

This promiscuity favors fecundation, each female being able to produce from 10 000 to 20 000 eggs twice a year, from March to October in waters of Brittany. These eggs remains sheltered in egg capsules in the shell of the mother during their incubation period (Figure 8).

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 18

Figure 8 : Limpet egg capsules

Larvae produced are pelagic : they float in the water body following streams for three weeks after hatch. Then they rejoin the bottom while keeping some mobility during their first year, before establishing definitely. Limpet can only be found on rocky bottoms. They need to fix on a substrate means that muddy, sandy or loose bottoms (maerls..) are inauspicious for it to settle but for the presence of appropriate supports (wrecks, various shellfish shells or other limpets…).

3.3.2 Geographical distribution of the slipper limpet in Europe (Figure 9) The limpet is originated from the Eastern Coast of the United-States. It reached Europe through several colonization waves (Thieltges et al., 2003), first in England at the end of the 19 th Century with the Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica ), then with the flat oyster (Ostrea edulis ) and finally with the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas ) in the late 1970’s (Walne, 1956 ; Minchin et al ., 1995 ; Blanchard, 1997).

Several factors explain its dissemination. First, transfers of oyster likely carrying limpet between various production pools. But transfers of individuals fixed on vessel hulls, notably during World War II, when numerous English and American vessels landed in French harbours (Liberty ships), after having spent some time in British coastal waters where this species was initially established also likely contributed to this (Blanchard, 1995 ; Blanchard et Hamon, 2009). Once established in France, individuals of this species were transported during transfers between oyster farm locations and thus colonized many coastline area (Blanchard, 1997). These transfers to numerous bays favourable to its development allowed this gastropode to settle quickly during the past 60 years. These spaces have a depth ranging from 0 to 20 meters, offering a low currentology (current inferior to one knot), with no or little desalination and harvesting sites, as in the Bay of Granville (and particularly the Bay of Cancale) (Blanchard & Ehrhold, 1999 ; Hamon 2009).

Besides, fishing using towing gear (dredge and trawl) also includes the fractionation of limpet chains and emphasized its dispersal on almost every colonized sites in the Western Channel, the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea. Colonies are also identified along the circumference of the Mediterranean Sea (Blanchard, 1995). Still, proliferation and invading species are words that may only be used after the 1970’s.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 19

Figure 9 : Geographical distribution of the limpet at European level

This colonization, and then its invasive nature, are explained by several factors. The limpet is a species that have low ecological requirements (temperature, salinity, turbidity…), an efficient and spreading reproduction strategy despite a lifespan of over 10 years (Blanchard, 2005). The limpet has no specific predators in Europe. Predation levels by carnivore fish (seabass…) or diving birds are very low in comparaison with the size of the population. Same, larval mortality by predation does not limit the growth of the limpet population that is colonizing sea bottoms (Hamon, 2009). We must also add to it the dispersion due to shellfish transfers and fishing activities using towing gears.

3.3.3 The Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel slipper limpet stock In the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel, its presence is clear since the mid-1970’s (Aubin, 1979), the first assessments of the population being conducted in the mid-1980’s (Quiniou & Blanchard, 1986).

Scientists were mostly interrested in the southern part of the bay (more commonly called the Bay of Cancale) due to the proximate presence of human activities (oyster and shellfish farming) more and more troubled by the progression of the limpet. Fast expansion of the limpet in this area was mostly highlighted during the last two decades (Blanchard, 2009).

3.3.3.1 Definition of the stock The success of introducing an exotic species depends on many factors but a fast dispersal from the initial introduction point is supposed to foster its long-term establishment and even more when expansion occurs while there is no loss of genetic diversity. The reproduction system and the recruitment dynamic are also key elements to the long-term survival of an introduced species (Sakai et al. , 2001; Le Mao, 2007).

In order to identify the spatial scale of gene flow disruption, a research at inter-bay scale in the Channel – Mer d’Iroise has recently been conducted, through analysis of 2 to 4 of the 6 bays (Brest Bay, Bay of Morlaix, Bay of Saint-Brieuc, Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel, Veys Bay, Eastern Seine Bay). Use of microsatellites loci reveals an inter-bay genetic structure that is significant and higher than the one observed between populations within these bays (Dupont, 2004; Figure 10). This relative isolation between the bays corresponds to larval dispersal simulations that revealed important exchanges between the different populations within bays, but a limited connectivity between them. (Ayata et al ., 2010).

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 20

Figure 10 : Limpet sampling along French coastline of Channel – Mer d’Iroise and results of the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) on allelic frequencies that allow visualizing genetic distance between populations.

Efficient dispersion of the Crepidula fornicata reaches the potential dispersion and the existence of a larval stage is enough to operate a fast and efficient colonization of a bay, even if we exclude human transportations which enhanced the quick geographical expansion of this species. On a smaller scale, the distribution of the genetic diversity within the 16 geographical entities (572 individuals) distributed over the entire Normano-Breton Gulf has been analysed by 5 microsatellites loci (Kruse & Viard unpublished, Dupont & Viard, 2003). These populations, sampled during campaigns BENTHOMONT I and II, are representative of the limpet distribution in the bay and of the different densities of population. The two main outcomes are (i) a highly significant genetic diversity of the populations regardless of geographical location or density of populations and (ii) the important gene flows between the populations resulting in a near absence of genetic structure at the scale of the Normano- Breton Gulf. The data are in adequation with larger scale prior results and results of a Lagrangian model of water flowing in the Channel that allows simulating larval dispersion (Ayata et al ., 2010).

Figure 11 : Size-class distribution of individuals of two limpet populations in the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel and Sexual distribution within the different size-classes.

In addition, these studies demonstrated that the breeding pattern (protandry) which lead to inconsistent distribution of individuals of both sexes between age classes would favor crosses between them (Dupont, 2004) (Figure 11). Such system gives the possibility to reach very quickly the

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 21

genetic and demographic balance, which also contributes to the high expansion capacity of bay populations.

Consequently, and after discussions with Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel limpet experts (Michel Blanchard; Claire Rollet ; Patrick Le Mao), it seems logical to consider the assembly Bay of Cancale – Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel – Bay of Granville as one consistent entity in order to define the limpet stock currently under certification assessment (Figure 6, Section 3.2.3).

3.3.3.2 Current stock status

In 2003, for the last time, the stock defined previously was subject of an accurate biomass assessment for its Southern part (Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel). The biomass was estimated to 150 000 tons for this area (Blanchard, 2009) and assumptions made from this figure for the entire stock reached 250 000 tons (Arbach Le Loup et al ., 2008). According to Blanchard (2009) and relying on limpet stock assessments in the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel between 1996 and 2004, the annual increase of the stock in the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel was estimated close to 9 000 or 10 000 tons a yeay (Figure 12).

Figure 12 : Evolution of limpet biomass in the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel (source: Blanchard 2009)

Some figures provide a good understanding of the significance and the speed of this bay colonization (Blanchard, op. cit.) : - Meat production scores 431 kg of dry-weight without ash (about 2,5 tons of fresh-weight) per hour. - Bio-deposit production reaches 770 tons per hour ! Limpets reject 58 kg of NH4-NH3 per hour in the bay.

Moreoever, this stock growth also implies an increase of the zones highly covered by limpet in the Bay of Cancale (Blanchard, 2006). In 2003, the biomass represented 51% of the bay benthic biomass. This study reveals that in 2003, 85% of the area was colonized, with more or less significant density fluctuations. Thus, 25% of the area was colonized at high density (51-100%) or a 3.5-fold increase over 8 years (Figure 13). The 2003 average estimated biomass was 11.6 tons per hectare in the bay. Since 2004, the limpet population has been targeted by modellings, notably for its trophic contestant nature regarding oysters and mussels cultivated along the shore of the Bay of Cancale (Cugier, 2010). Currently, the stock of limpet in the Bay of Cancale should be of about 200 000 – 250 000 tons, without prejudice, as there is no in situ validation. In fact, biomass assessment re- actualization projects (e.g., IFREMER Cancre project ) did not succeed so the last assessment dates from 2003. The range of projects conducted by IFREMER concluded that it was impossible to eradicate this invasive species or even highly difficult to slow its proliferation beyond the identified outbreaks. Any exploitation of this species then constitutes an opportunity.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 22

Figure 13 : Evolution of limpet coverage in the Bay of Cancale between 1996 and 2004 (source : Blanchard, 2009)

3.3.4 Outline of the history and fishery management Thanks to the elaboration of an innovative process to separate flesh from shell using cold, the company SLP based in Cancale and created in 2008 expressed the will to industrialize the limpet shelling and to value products (shell and flesh) separately. To do so, the company had to build an entirely innovative industry from a technical point of view (fishing, industrial separation) but also from an administrative and commercial perspective as it targets a species not initially referenced as operable.

During the first four years, it was shellfish farm partners which brought bags of limpet collected during oyster parks cleaning. Inputs were fluctuating at that time both in terms of quantity and quality.

It did not allow the company to succesfully conduct its R&D projects in optimal conditions. Since June 2012, the harvest is achieved using an oyster barge («PAPY») specially equipped for limpet harvest. This investment of the North-Brittany CRC highly contributed to the progress of company SLP projects. In fact, this vessel brings regular supply, controlled in terms of quantity and quality thanks to a selection of the fishing area. This constituted a turn in the evolution of the company SLP, moving from an experimental stage to a regular production stage in a pilote plant located in Cancale.

In 2013, the prefecture of Ille-et-Vilaine delivered a prefectoral decree allowing experimental limpet harvest. This entitlement, valid for five years, gave a legal framework to this harvest. It stipulates that the CRC and the CRPMEM are allowed to sample limpets within a specific area of the Bay of Cancale. The fishery complies to controls of competent State services.

In 2014, after 5 years searching and developing the shelling process and improving the quality of the final product (IQF frozen), the shelling chain expanded to double the production capacity, reaching an industrial stage. In Septembre 2015, the ownership of the «PAPY» was transferred from the CRC to the company «Cap à l’Ouest».

The structure and the development of this industry were rendered possible by the cooperation of all of the local stakeholders concerned with the limpet expansion issue in the Bay of Cancale. Thus, shellfish farming and fishing professionals, local officials, local associations, commercial partners and also State services worked as one, each at its scale, to help developing a limpet industry.

In September 2015, the industry may be modelized as follows (Figure 14) :

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 23

Figure 14 : Organization of the limpet harvest industry (Source: ALD-SLP)

Since 2013 and the publication of a decree allowing experimental sampling of limpets for the purpose of marine bottom reconstitution, the limpet harvest follows a legal framework. In this version of the decree, only the CRC and the CRPMEM were given right to equip a vessel for monitoring missions, as it happened between 2013 and July 2015. Nevertheless, the CRC decided to disengage from limpet fishery in July 2015 for economic reasons. In September 2015, the company «Cap à l’Ouest» (based in Vivier-sur-mer), a local partner, decided to take the vessel ownership over, to harvest limpet thanks to a leasing contract for the «PAPY» (CRC). The decree allowing experimental sampling was then amended on September, 4 th 2015 so that a private business could harvest this resource. The duration of the sampling entitlement was reduced meanwhile, running until December, 31 st 2016 instead of 2018. As stipulated in the previous decree, the new decree forces the new shipowner to provide data about this harvest (zones, tonnage, use…) every year, in partnership with the SLP.

After several meetings, gathering notably the group ALD-SLP, the CRC, the DML and the DIRM, the DPMA stated in regard of the future of the limpet fishery: the adjusted management system, to be implemented in 2017 at the latest, will become a classic system under fishing authority. During the second semester of 2016, the vessel «PAPY» will thus have to obtain an operation permit (Permis de Mise en Exploitation or PME) , a European and national fishing entitlement, and to board the current regulatory equipment for fishing vessel such as VMS and logbook.

3.3.5 Information and monitoring Main sources of data for this fishery are : - limpet landings data from the vessel «PAPY» (tonnages, location and date of fishing activity, bycatch consignment) - catch data (counting, sorting , date and area of the fishing haul) and bycatch survival rate for the vessel «PAPY», collected during boardings of Quentin Le Bras (a total of 13 days at sea, between March and June 2013), within the context of research on the limpet industry.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 24

3.3.6 Stock assessment There is no formal ongoing assessment for the limpet stock. Stock status and potential progression (or regression) are not tracked anymore since the last IFREMER scientific campaign in 2003.

3.3.7 Key lower trophic level species (LTL) The Atlantic slipper limpet is a filter-feeder gastropod (trophic level : 2). It is not a lower trophic level species because : - Slipper limpet is not listed as one of the species types that are defined by default as “key LTL stocks” for the purposes of an MSC assessment (See below)

- There is no significant predator dependency on this species (slipper limpet biomass described as a trophic impasse in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel, cf. Arbach Leloup and al ., 2008) - There is a large part of the primary production which is not transferred upward to higher trophic levels (low transfer efficiency rates, cf. Arbach Leloup and al ., 2008)

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 25

3.4 Principle Two : Ecosystem Background This section of the report describes the potential impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Five key components are considered to describe the complete range of elements in the ecosystem likely to be affected by the fishery. These are:

i. Primary species: Only in-scope species that are managed according to either target or limit reference points

ii. Secondary species: large variety of species including fish and shellfish that are not managed according to reference points and out-of scope species (amphibians, birds, reptiles and mammals) that are not ETP species.

iii. ETP species: Endangered, Threatened and Protected species

iv. Habitats: habitats within which the fishery operates

v. Ecosystem: ecosystem elements such as trophic structure and activity, composition of the community, biodiversity.

For each of these five components, the team assess 3 topics:

i .Outcome : current status of each component and whether the fishery is posing a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the component or hindering its recovery

ii .Management: arrangements in place to manage the impact that the UoA has on the P2 species

iii. Information: tracking and data available in terms of information adequancy

3.4.1 Primary species Harvesting data are compiled since June 2012 in a database which lists the tonnage of limpet caught and the number of bycatch species individuals brought onboard during each fishing operation. The discard catch census protocol (i.e. all catches but limpet) was reinforced in 2015. It now identifies, for each dredge tow, all of the bycatch before discarding. Beforehand (since 2012), this protocol was less accurate but allowed identifiying discards by fishing trip (daily data). From these previous data (Le Bras, 2013), catches were composed of slipper limpet for 99.7%. From the catch monotoring updated (data compiled : 2013 – 2015), the same catch ratio is found, with 99,9% of slipper limpet (Table 3). No other species, excepted the limpet, thus represents significant captures (all primary, secondary and ETP species represents less than 1% the total catch weight). Based on the nomenclature decision-making tree for species covered by Principle 2 of the MSC Fisheries baseline (see. GSA3.1.1 and Appendix GSA4) See Tables 3 & 4, there is no main primary species in this fishery because they do not met either of the following points:

• The catch does not comprise 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA or • The species is classified as “less resilient” and the catch of the species by the UoA comprise 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 26

Table 3 : Fishing catch data compilation (summary of the fishing period 2013-2015). Source: Le Bras, 2013

Average weights Total catch (number of Species Total catch weight (kg) %Total catch weight (kg) estimate (kg)* specimens) Araignée / Spider crab 0,8 601 480,8 0,041% Huitre plate/ European flat oyster 0,2 784 156,8 0,013% Seiche / Cuttlefish 0,5 176 88 0,008% Sole / Sole 0,7 33 23,1 0,002% Barbue / Brill 1 13 13 0,001% Roussette / Lesser spotted dogfish 1 32 32 0,003% Hippocampe / Hypocampus 0,1 9 0,9 0,000% Raie / Skate 0,7 28 19,6 0,002% Bulot / whelk 128,2 0,011% Crépidule / Slipper limpet 1 167 348,0 99,919% Total 1 168 290,4 100% *From Le Bras, 2013

Table 4 : Classification of catch species (based on the nomenclature from GSA3.1.1 and Appendix GSA4)

Out of Managed with Primary Less >5% Main/ Species name nº (%) weight (%) ETP? Scope? Rerefence points? /Secondary resilient? Catch Minor Species Category target species - - - - P1_Target stock (PI 1.1.1 with RBF) Slipper Limpet Crepidula fornicata > 99% - - -

Others species (nº especies)

Lesser spotted dogfish Scyliorhinus canicula <1% No No Yes Primary No No Minor Primary Minor Sole Solea solea <1% No No Yes Primary No No Minor Primary Minor whelk Buccinum undatum <1% No No Yes Primary No No Minor Primary Minor Brill Scophthalmus rhombus <1% No No Yes Primary No No Minor Primary Minor spider crabs <1% No No No Secondary No No Minor Secondary Minor oyster <1% No No No Secondary No No Minor Secondary Minor cuttlefish <1% No No No Secondary No No Minor Secondary Minor small crabs (ex :hermit crabs) ex : Pagurus sp <1% No No No Secondary No No Minor Secondary Minor small fish sp ex : Lepadogaster <1% No No No Secondary No No Minor Secondary Minor Rajidae sp (ex :Raja Skates undulata) / torpedo sp <1% No No No Secondary No No Minor Secondary Minor flat Oyster Ostrea edulis <1% yes No No ETP Shortnose hippocampus Hippocampus hippocampus <1% yes No No ETP Thornback ray Raja clavata <1% yes No No ETP

Therefore, the list of minor primary species is as follows: - sole, - lesser spotted dogfish - whelk, - brill

3.4.1.1 Sole ( solea solea )

Outcome : The common sole is an highly important species commercially speaking whose distribution covers the entire North-Est of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. There are two distinct resident stocks in the Channel: Eastern and Western. Sole is a benthic fish living on sandy or muddy bottoms. In the Channel, sexual maturity is reached at the age of three (26 cm). The reproduction period goes from February to April and causes high concentrations in coastal waters. Main spawning grounds are located in the Pas-de-Calais and the large bays (Somme, Seine, Solent, Mont Saint-Michel, Start and Lyme). Growth goes fast as juvelines reaches the size of 11cm after a year. After three years, sole moves to deeper waters and we may observe a difference in growth in favor of the females. Lifespan goes over 20 years (Ifremer Report, 2004).

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 27

According to the ICES (2014), the sole is a core species for the Channel as its high economic value grants it a target status for numerous fishing metiers. In the Channel, the sole harvest is ruled by two TACs (Total allowed catches) that correspond to ICES divisions VIId and VIIe (approximate limits of the Western and Eastern parts of the Channel). Main gears used for this harvest are beam trawls, otter trawls and gillnets.

The sole stock status in Western Channel (Division VIIe) and the ICES opinion (2014) are summarized in Figure 15, below:

Figure 15 : Sole in the Division VIIe (Western Channel). Stock assessment summary. Supposed recruitment values are shaded. In the top right : SSB and F for assessment historical series (from the ICES, 2014).

Fishing mortality fluctuated near Fmsy since the beginning of the years 1990 and is considered lower than F msy since 2009. SSB (reproductive biomass) fluctuated around B trigger during about two decades before increasing from 2009 to 2012 and has then decreased because of lower recruitments. Recruitment fluctuated without general pattern, but age classes between 2012 and 2012 are considered below average. ICES considers that the sole stock in the Western Channel (Division VIIe) reached maximum sustainable yield in 2014.

Management : Management of this stock, based on the establishment of the TAC, would be inefficient to rule sole harvest. In 2005, effort restrictions were established for beam trawl in this fishery in order to ensure compliance to the TAC and improve data quality.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 28

Since 2010, a system of catch quotas has also been implemented for UK beam trawlers. Technical measures applied to this stock comprise a 24cm minimum landing size and a 80mm minimum mesh size for beam trawlers. In addition, local regulations limiting the use of some gear or vessel type are also in place. Gears targeting only this species must be equipped with selective devices to minimize the catch of juveniles (individuals of a size inferior to minimum landing size). Only a few cases of skimming have been observed.

Information : In 2012, the reference indicator adopted a new analytical assessment for this stock. It is based on (i) two commercial fleets of comparison, (ii) the campaign UK-EW-BTS and (iii) two new spatially wider campaigns. The goal of reducing retrospective patterns has been reached and the new assessment method, with more realistic reference points, will allow the ICES to provide more appropriate advices. Fleet sampling levels are sufficient to provide highly accurate evaluation, even if some improvements of age-class sampling among the French fleet would be beneficial.

Impact of the slipper limpet fishery : Given the very limited captures of soles achieved by the vessel targeting limpet in regard of tonnages of fisheries targeting soles in the Western Channel (Management Unit, TAC> 600 tons, Fig.15) and their discard while alive after a short dredge tow, the mortality caused by the fishery concerned by the certification on this stock may be considered as negligible.

3.4.1.2 Lesser spotted dogfish ( Scyliorhinus canicula )

Outcome : The lesser spotted dogfish S. canicula is one of the most profuse shark species in the North-East Atlantic from Norway and the Shetland Islands to Senegal, and in the entire Mediterranean Sea. Its reproduction is oviparous and the species seems to have a high reproductive capacity, which suggests it is able to endure higher harvesting levels than most shark species (Ellis et al. , 2009). Although larger individuals are landed and saved for human consumption, this species is ranked as “Minor concern” on the IUCN red list (Ellis et al. , 2009). Given the fishery localization, the stocks presently concerned are defined by the ICES as those located in the division III (Skagerrak et Kattegat), sub-area IV (North Sea), the division VIId (Eastern Channel), sub-area VI and divisions VIIa –c, e-J (Celtic Seas and West of Scotland).

ICES considers that data are limited for the considered stock, this is why management advice are issued every two years. The latest advice was published in 2012 (valid for 2013 and 2014) and relies on qualitative assessment of the stock status based on data provided by scientifical fishing campaigns using beam trawlers (BTS) and bottom trawlers (IBTC).

According to the ICES (2012), the stock profuciency is said likely to have increased by over 20% between 2005 and 2009 (average on five years) and 2010-2011 (average on two years) within sub- region VI and division VIIa-c, e-j (Figure 16). These estimates are based on data from BTS-Q3 or EVHOE campaigns and the Spanish campaign on Porcupine. Fishing mortality is decreasing because of an increasing biomass of the stock and fewer landings. Thus, the ICES recommends not to increase catch by more than 20% for 2013, regarding average catch for these last three years (ICES, 2012). Moreover, the ICES recommends not to establish individual TAC for this stock.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 29

Figure 16 : Lesser-spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula) in Subarea VI and Divisions VIIa–c, e–j. Left: Reported landings of lesser-spotted dogfish in Subareas VI and VII. Right: Abundance indices from surveys in: (top) SpPGFS-WIBTS-Q4 (numbers per haul; boxes mark parametric standard error of the stratified biomass index; lines mark bootstrap confidence intervals (a = 0.80, bootstrap iterations = 1000)); (middle) EVHOE-WIBTS-Q4 in Divisions VIIf–j (relative abundance in numbers); (below) UK (E&W) BTS in Divisions VIIa–f (mean catch per unit effort; dashed lines = mean annual CPUE for 2005–2009, red line = mean annual CPUE for 2010–2011) (from ICES report, 2012).

Management: Dogfish stocks management follows the ICES approach for stock with limited data and falls within Category 3. This category comprises stocks whose investigation indices (among others) are available and which provides reliable indications on trends of stock status indicators such as mortality, recruitment and biomass. The general concept of ICES scientifical advices based on catch campaigns relies on the following assumption : if survey data are decreasing, then captures must be incrementially decreased and vice-versa (ICES, 2012b). For such stock types, the ICES then use a harvest control rule based on a statu quo of the catch adjusted indicator. The advice is then based upon the comparision between the two latest indicator values and the five previous values, combined with recent capture or landing data. Knowledge of harvesting status also influences the recommended volume of capture (CIEM, 2012a). As said previously, the ICES estimated that the SSB of these stocks have increased by over 20% during the periods 2005-2009 and 2010-2011. This way, an increase of catch by maximum 20% is implicitely recommend as maximum quota regarding the average catch over the past three years. However, as dogfish catch data are not fully documented, these 20% are not converted into real catch volume (ICES, 2012a and c). The ICES considers this

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 30

approach as sufficiently conservatory given the constant increase of catch rate over a long time period and as current levels of exploitation are not set to be harmful for the stock (CIEM, 2012a et c).

Information : This stock is under mandate of ICES Work Group on Elasmobranch (WGEF) which was commissioned to provide assessments and advices on shark and ray stock status in the entire ICES area and since 2002. The WGEF reviews and sets requirements in terms of data (fishery, survey, biological parameters) to identify stocks and assessment methods for analytical models in order to assess stock status. Moreover, it defines and widens methodologies and assessments for elasmobranchs.

Concerning species S. canicula , there is no obligation to declare catch as such, and the species is often included in general categories such as “dogfish”. Consequently, landing data are not considered reliable. Moreover, high discard levels occur and are difficult to quantify (ICES, 2012a): hence the species ranking in category 3 (limited data) by ICES.

Impact of the slipper limpet fishery : Given the very limited catch of small dogfish performed by the vessel exploiting limpet in regard of the tonnage of fisheries targeting this species in the Channel-North Sea (>4 000 tons, Figure 16) and their discard while alive after a short dredge tow, the mortality caused by the fishery concerned by the certification on this stock may be considered as negligible.

3.4.1.3 Whelk (Buccinum undatum)

Outcome : The common whelk (Buccinum undatum ) is a gastropod of the family Buccinidae . Its distribution area extends from the polar region of the Northern Atlantic Ocean (Northern Europe / Maine Gulf / Northern Arctic) to more tempered regions of the Northern Atlantic Ocean. Whelk populations located in the Bay of Granville and the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel are located on the Southern edge of this distribution area.

Unlike most molluscs, whelk does not show a diffuse reproduction and does not go through a planktonic larval stage. Instead of this, fecundation is internal and femals then produce egg capsules within which larva grew and mature before hatching as pre-adults. This means spread levels of this species a much lower than most molluscs. Fishermen are aware of this and admit they are more likely to locally exhaust whelk populations if fishing effort is focused on a single zone.

Figure 17 : Monitoring of stock status is based on following trends in nominal CPUE (kg/pot).

From the 2011 IFREMER diagnostic on Western Channel whelk, the stock under exploitation is geographically localized inside the Normano-Breton Gulf, around the Channel Islands. Landings are

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 31

generally wrongly estimated as commercialization circuit usually not comprises fish-auctions. Thus, official statistics resulting from declaration documents (fishing form) are difficult to use. It is therefore not possible to interpret trends and perform diagnostics from these data.

Nevertheless for Lower-Normandy (Figure 17), a sample of 32 reference vessels whose data are thought to be reliable, was used in order to obtain production and effort indicators for the period 2003- 2008. Catch and yield analyse over this period reveals that the production decreased observed from 2003 to 2007 seems to have halted (slight recovery in 2008).

In parallel, fishing effort shows a 15% decline (in terms of number of pots set into water) which maintain is 2008. Hence, a stabilization of yields between 2006 and 2008 can be observed, with an upward recovery in 2008. In the beginning of 2010, professionals increased the gap of the sorting grids, which seems to have some effects on the size structure of landings.

In general, the stock showed signs of clear overexploitation until 2007, but regulation measures recently taken (fishing closure in January, grid gap, decrease of authorized pots number) seem to be profitable for stock status.

Management :

For every whelk fisheries in the Bay of Cancale (including Jersey and Britanny), there is no clear harvesting strategy. Because of disparate perceptions regarding stock status and control of fishing effort, there never was a formal joint management measure between the three stakeholders (Normandy, Brittany, Jersey). Management measures were then implemented unilateraly.

Current exploitation strategy for Lower-Normandy fishery consists in pursuing the gradual reduction of fishing effort through the reduction of the total number of « Whelk » entitlements (including the pursue of other effort control measures), which reduced by half landings compared to the peak observed in 2001.

Information : Currently there is no expert group achieving tracking of the stock such as ICES Workgroups. Until now, no stock assessment attempt was undertaken. Nevertheless, auto-sampling programs data from fishermen targeting this resource (program started in 2009) and at sea observation campaigns performed by the SMEL (every two years), would allow detecting potential evolutions (SMEL, 2014).

Impact of limpet fishery: Given the very limited catch of whelk performed by the vessel exploiting limpet in regard of the tonnage of fisheries targeting this species in the Channel-North Sea (>5 000 tons, Figure 17) and their discard while alive after a short dredge haul, the mortality caused by the fishery concerned by the certification on this stock may be considered as negligible.

3.4.1.4 Brill (Scophthalmus rhombus )

Outcome : Brill is a flat fish usually found in shallow waters near the shore. It preferentially occupies sandy bottoms but may also be found on lower granulometry bottoms (muddy-sandy type). Mature individuals are rarely observed along shore strip while juveniles are often captured near the shore and in estuaries. Juveniles feed on small fishes and benthic crabs. Their prey type changes as they grow (diet mostly composed of small gadidae).

Brill grew faster than flat fishes such as sole or plaice. Genetical analysis reveal not much changes and so no structuration for the brill in its distribution area. These low level changes confirm that brill popultations within ICES area IV, III and VII may be considered as belonging to a unique stock,

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 32

although life cycle features change within this specific unit and depending on the latitude. The different stock clusterings may potentially be separated from each other. This would require more spatially disaggregated assessment and management.

Since 1998, landings were relatively predictable and above historical figures. They are considered to be a reliable catch approximation as brill discards are low. Stock size indicator (of LPUE) during the past three years (2010-2012) is 56% higher in the North Sea than the average of the previous five years (2005-2009) and 2% inferior in the Kattegat area (Figure 18).

Figure 18 : Brill in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId,e. Official landings per area (in tonnes). Top right: North Sea abundance index (BTS_ISI_Q3, number/hour) and biomass index (corrected lpue from the Dutch beam trawl fleet > 221kW (kg/day)). Below: Abundance index IIIa South (BITS_HAV_Q1&4, number/hour) (ICES, 2013).

Management : The advice is based on a biomass indicator use as a stock size indicator (based on two indexes of the survey – BITS Q1 and 4 combined and BTS Q3). The uncertainty associated to values of the index are unavailable.

Information : Regarding stocks with limited data for which a biomass index is available, the ICES uses a catch index adjusted by statu quo as harvest control rule. The advice is based on a comparison of the three latest values of the index with the five previous values combined with recent landing data. Knowledge about harvesting status also influences the recommended capture volume.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 33

Impact of limpet fishery : Given the very limited catch of brill performed by the vessel exploiting limpet in regard of the tonnage of fisheries targeting this species in the Channel-North Sea (>1 500 tons, Figure 18) and their discard while alive after a short dredge tow, the mortality caused by the fishery concerned by the certification on this stock may be considered as negligible.

3.4.2 Secondary species As said previously (section 3.4.1 and Tables 3 & 4), no species other than limpet represents significant catch. Relying on the decision-making tree for the classification of species covered by the Principle 2 of the MSC Fisheries baseline (see GSA3.1.1 and Appendix GSA4), there is no major secondary species in this fishery. Minor secondary species are presented hereafter (see Table 4).

Outcome: Minor secondary species usually consist in spider crabs, farmed oysters, cuttlefishes, skates (Rajidae sp, Torpedo sp), small crabes and benthic fishes (ex: Lepadogaster genre). Significant fluctuations of bycatch composition (notably secondary species) are observed according to the area and the fishing season. From May to October, bycatch are mostly spider crabs and cuttlefishes which come to the bay for reproduction. In winter, dogfish (primary species) mostly compose bycatch. The quantity of oyster among catches highly depend on fishing area. In fact, when dredge tows are performed along shellfish farming leases, the proportion of oysters captured is higher. These spatio-temporal fluctuations explains the high variability of bycatches. The only species of skate relatively well identified is the torpedo skate ( Torpedo torpedo ). The volume of skates bycatch (secondary species) is very low and can be estimated as negligible considering the volume of slipper limpet catches : less than 120 individuals caught between June 2012 and June 2015 (catch data monitoring, North Brittany CRC, see Table 3).

Moreover, only a few microfauna species associated with limpet-populated bottoms and which were not separated from limpets during the onboard washing are landed. But this volume is insignificant in regard of the volume of landed limpets (Le Bras, 2013) which remains suitable to the section of the decree in force.

Management: The management of secondary species caught by the fishery is similar and achieved in parallel to the management of primary species. As a reminder, the dredge discharging is performed in a hopper that allows a first manual sorting of the largeste foreign bodies and bycatches (oyster shells, animals, weeds, primary and secondary species). The load then goes through a rotative washer that will wash the limpet chain with sea water to remove mud or sand residues and microfaune associated to limpet- populated reefs.

During the shelling performed in the plant, retained species are separated from limpets during three production stages : with the shells on their exit from the plant, during the automatic sorting and during the manual sorting. A researched conducted in 2013 (Le Bras, 2013) revealed that the main foreign bodies found this way were small crabs (from 3 to 10 mm wide), anemones of about 1cm long, asciendians Styela clava, and ermit crabs Pagurus sp. Other animals found anecdotally are fishes of the Lepadogaster genre, nudibranchs, sponges, craylets, a crab ( Dromia personata) and a Pisa nodipes . Of the landed ton of limpet, less than 250 individuals of secondary species were also landed (which represents less than 0.1% of the catch weight). Catches of secondary species are negligible at the scale of the fishery.

Information : The identification and the quantification of secondary species is systematic since September 2015, even if a catch qualification and quantification system was already existing on the ship since 2012, but with a less rigourous tracking protocole (censing by tide based on a global assessment declaration, at the end of the tide). A strong system of descriptive forms for catches is now in place to provide

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 34

adequate quantitative and qualitative data in order to identify the composition of the secondary species caught by the fishery. Results of the research conducted in 2013 by Le Bras and the daily observations of the « PAPY » vessel crew prove that catches of secondary species by the fishery are negligible.

3.4.3 ETP species interacting with the fishery Outcome : There are several protected areas in the bay of the Mont Saint-Michel, defined by the EC Birds and Habitats Directives. More than 25 species of birds and 18 aquatic species are classified as species of Community Interest such as: big shad ( Alosa alosa ), twaite shad ( A. Fallax ), river lamprey ( Lampetra fluviatilis ), marine lamprey ( Petromyzon marinus ), Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ), grey seal (Halichoerus grypus ), porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ), otter of Europe ( Lutra lutra ) and common dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ).

In the context of the EC Birds and Habitats Directives , the “Agence des Aires Marines Protégées” (AAMP) evaluated the interactions of various gear types with the qualifying habitats and species of designated protected sites (Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012 ; Mary, 2010 ; Le Fur, 2010). For the dredge slipper limpet fishery, it was concluded that there is no accidental bycatch of any bird, fish and marine mammal species listed under the EC Habitats and Birds directives.

Taking into account the OSPAR Convention (Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic), only 3 ETP species (http://www.ospar.org/work- areas/bdc/species-habitats/list-of-threatened-declining-species-habitats ) have been recorded during the fishing period 2013-2015 (see Tables 3 & 4):

• Ostrea edulis (Flat Oyster); • Hippocampus hippocampus (Short-snouted seahorse, less than 10 individuals caught since 2013); • Raja clavata (Thornback ray; <10 thornback rays in 2013) and, potentially other species of skates/rays (<120 individuals for all rays/skates species since the beginning of the fishery, in 2012, not systematically determined at the species level), mainly released alive.

There are potentially catches of other skates species not counted in the bycatch species of the fishery. Nevertheless, considering the difficulty to identify the different skate species by the operators during sorting out on the deck, all the species of skate were considered as ETP for this fishery. The only species of skate relatively well identified is the torpedo skate ( Torpedo torpedo ), but this species is not classified as an ETP species. Note that the volume of skates bycatch (secondary species) is very low and can be estimated as negligible considering the volume of slipper limpet catches : less than 120 individuals caught between June 2012 and June 2015 (catch data monitoring, North Brittany CRC, see Table 3).

According to the EU legislation, before any activity taking place within these protected areas (ex: a fishery) and which would potentially affect habitats and species of Community interest, an environmental impact study (i.e an impact evaluation of the human activity) must be done.

In this context, the French Marine Protected Areas Agency (MPAA) was in charge of a study on the interactions of several fishing gears with the actual habitats and species on the sites under protection in conformance with the executives directives (Le Fur, 2010). Concerning the slipper limpet dredge fishery, the MPAA and Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel studies concluded that no accidental catches of species of Community interest referenced in the bay of the Mont Saint-Michel occur (Le fur, 2010 and Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012).

Management :

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 35

Since 2013, an internal “water surrender” procedure for bycatch (primary and secondary species) and ETP species (only fish and mollusc species as no mammal or bird are caught) has been specifically implemented for this fishery, in order to decrease the mortality of these bycatches. Besides, experts from Océanopolis and the ornithological station of the Big Island participated in the writing of this procedure, in particular concerning the manipulation and how marine mammals and birds potentially caught should be put back at sea.

The identification of the protected skates species is more or less well realized, which makes difficult the estimation of catches for this species. In order to limit and reduce the potential confusion between the skates species, a specific identification key is under development by the IFREMER. End of 2015, IFREMER have also check information include in the internal document for identification of species(document developed for ETP species, by ALD and use by fishers since 2013). The majority of the species caught by the fishery are in a relative good health, especially because the dredge hauls are very short (less than 5 minutes). Besides, all the species tend to stay at the surface of the heap of slipper limpets as the dredge fills in. So, the secondary species are not crushed by the weight of the load of slipper limpets.

Information : At the fishery scale, the new strategy in place since September 2015 allows a significant improvement of the catches monitoring system. For each dredge hauls, the crew registers the number of captured individuals on an appropriate sheet (attached to the rotative washer), where all the potential primary and secondary species are identified, as well as the ETP species.

The counting is then much more effective. Besides, a specific document to help in the identification of the main species of skates and the other ETP species potentially present in the fishing zone is also attached to the rotative washer.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 36

3.4.4 Habitats The exploitation of slipper limpet in the Cancale bay takes place in a classified Natura 2000 zone for which a significant number of documents have already been published. Various elementary habitats were identified during the inventory realized for the determination of the Natura 2000 Objectives document. The exploitation of slipper limpet takes place mainly on areas of medium sands (Figure 19).

Translation of legend *Medim sand from dune *Coarse sands and gravel *Sand bank *Poorely sorted sands

Figure 19 : Map of the elementary habitats Natura 2000 on mobile subtidal and intertidal substrata furnitures (Sellin and al ., 2009 ; according to Trigui and al ., 2007)

On the basis of this mapping, it is possible to demonstrate that the very restricted fishing zone of the fishery is exclusively composed of substratum of medium sand, partially covered with slipper limpets. This zone does not overlap with any remarkable habitats nor with some with a listed status into the bay: herbariums (like Zostera) , Sand Mason ( Lanice conchilega ), and Hermelles reefs ( Sabellaria alveolata ).

In a general way, bottom fishing gears as dredge or trawl are classified among the most destructive for the marine environment because they have an obvious impact on the target stock, but also on the benthic ecosystem. These impacts concern as well as the physical components of the ecosystem (leveling of bottoms, destruction of the mineral and biological structures, sediments resuspension) as on the biological components (damage on endobenthic and epibenthic biocenoses by crushing, burial, exposure to the predators, and catch of non-targeted species) (S. Kloff and al ., 2007).

Concerning the dredge effect in the fishing zone, if it does not modify structurally benthic communities (Guyonnet and Grall, 2005), fishing operation frequency can however stress significantly the

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 37

disturbance (Le Mao, pers. com.). By consequence, with a fishing strategy focused on a small area intensely dredged, the exploitation of the slipper limpet can engender local degradation without consequence on the benthic habitat in a wider scale.

A study of incidence Natura 2000 was led at the beginning of 2012 (by the Association of the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel Environment) in order to determine if the exploitation of the slipper limpet could be compatible with the various challenges for conservation defined by the Objectives Document NATURA 2000 in Bay of the Mont St-Michel. It concluded that one of the orientations retained is "supporting and in encouraging projects of harvest and sustainable valorization of the slipper limpet. Based on the present general elements in the document " Reference table for the management in sites Natura 2000 at sea: Volume 1 Professional fishing " (MPAA, Le Fur, 2010) concerning the interactions between fishing gears and marine habitats classified Natura 2000, the impact study concluded that dredge extraction of slipper limpets has small physical, chemical and biological incidences on habitats, but nevertheless it had to be limited to the dredging zones in actual concessions.

3.4.5 Ecosystem Many studies characterized the trophic system of the bay of the Mont Saint-Michel, in particular within a specific project on the site of the National Program of Coastal Ecology (PNEC, Arbach Leloup and al ., 2008) then other research projects (IPRAC: Cugier and al ., 2010). This trophic system is now well known. These works were used to highlight the considerable capture of the primary production by the very strong biomasses of slipper limpets. This capture reaches approximately a third of the primary production of the bay of the Mont St-Michel. It is over three times higher than the one realized by shellfish in farm. The slipper limpet thus is putting considerable pressure on the nutritive resources in the bay as the natural trophic chain has now only 60 % of the natural primary production in this area.

Blanchard (2005, 2006, 2009) well described the role of slipper limpet in the ecosystem of the bay of the Mont Saint-Michel. It is therefore very unlikely that the fishery in assessment process can cause irreversible effects on the ecosystem. Indeed, knowing the biology characteristics of the exploited species (high speed of reproduction, relatively long expectancy of life, gregarious nature) and the high volume of slipper limpet this fishery intends to extract each year, the stock is still growing faster than its harvest plan (more than 10 times superior to the current harvest)even if the scientists don’t have recent data to certify it. Moreover, the measures to limit slipper limpet development would reduce its main impact on the bay, linked to the consumption of the primary Production.

Benthic samples analyzed at the level of the fishing zone do not show significant difference in the structure of the populations of invertebrates where slipper limpets are present on the marine bottom and those on cleared areas from slipper limpets (concessions for oysters farming). In both cases, there is an important heterogeneity of sediments leading to a diversity of the small-scale species (from Montaudouin and Sauriau, on 1999). Besides, the ecosystem of the bay of Mont St-Michel is also modified by the habitat change due to the spread of the slipper limpet and its consequences for the sea bottom (Ehrhold and al., on 1998). These changes have harmful consequences on the functions of the bay which is an essential nursery area, in particular for flatfish (Kostecki and al., 2011). Yet, the fishing is exactly located in a place which would allow limitation on the stock spreading and by consequence its harmful consequences on habitats and nearby ecosystems..

The effects of dense populations of slipper limpets are therefore multiple (to see Hamon and al. 2002), in particular:

• Changes in marine settlement: the slipper limpet silts up the environment surrounding by the production of faeces and pseudo-faeces, leading to a modification of the benthic assemblages. It increases the heterogeneity of the species for average low rates of colonization (decrease of the cover rate). But, since the colonization rate reaches a threshold,

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 38

an impoverishment of the environment becomes inexorable, the slipper limpet being practically the only remaining species on bottom; • Sea bottoms coverage : the growth of colonies of slipper limpets causes a spatial extension of the population by spots joining together until total coverage the sediment surface that become a uniform carpet, excluding the species dependent to a type of sediment for their recruitment (scallops and flatfish for example); • Phoresy: the slipper limpet settles first and foremost on the shell of a congener, but also on any flat support of sufficient size. Thus, they settle on the shell of the large-sized bivalves: scallop, flat and true oysters, sea almonds... • Trophic competition: filtering gastropod, the slipper limpet consumes a big part (approximately 1/3) of the available phytoplankton, to the detriment of the other filters species of the bay.

A Natura 2000 impact assessment was led at the beginning of 2012 (Association Baie du Mont Saint- Michel, 2012) to determine if the exploitation of the slipper limpet could be compatible with the various conservation issues defined by the Channel DOCOB, carried out under the under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (2008/56/CE) . It turns out that one of the orientations retained in this document consists in "supporting and encouraging the projects of harvest and sustainable valuation of the slipper limpet" to restore the marine environment.

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

3.5.1 Governance and policy

3.5.1.1 Legal framework

The Cancale Bay Atlantic Slipper Limpet Dredge Fishery takes place completely inside 12 nautical miles. Its management system is defined by the proposals of management of the French fishing (rural Code and of sea fishing Livre IX: Sea fishing and marine fish farming and decree n°2011-776).

The slipper limpet is not considered as species usually exploited by commercial fishing. It is rightly classified today as invasive species, in particular close to the shellfish farming areas in the bay of the Mont Saint-Michel. The Regional Committee of the Shellfish farming of North Brittany (CRC) took the initiative in 2013 to undertake the management of a professional activity of slipper limpet extraction in Cancale bay.

The exploitation of the slipper limpet has an administrative framework since June 14th, 2013 and the publication of a decree giving authorization of experimental slipper limpets extraction (Decree n°2013- 6540), in an optics of the sea bottom restoration. In this version of the decree, only the CRC or the CRPMEM had the authorization to outfit an equipped vessel for the missions of extraction, which was the case from 2013 till July, 2015.

The legal framework of this fishery is based on several management measures, which are clarified by the decree. The authorities DDTM 35 - DIRM NAMO are responsible for the management of the fishery, so the monitoring and the application of measures stipulated by the decree. These were established according to the recommendations of the North Brittany CRC and the Brittany CRPMEM, and also the scientific opinion of IFREMER. They were adopted with the agreement of the representative of the government (Prefect of Region of Brittany). These measures of management of the Cancale Bay Atlantic Slipper Limpet Dredge Fishery are the following ones:

• Authorization of experimental fishing of the slipper limpet to limit its expansion in the bay of the Mont Saint-Michel and restore the quality of sea bottom (Article 1).

• Fishing zones in the bay of the Mont Saint-Michel are bounded (Art. 2) (see in Figure 1)

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 39

• Until now, a single fishing boat ("PAPY") is equipped for this fishing and it is the property of the North Brittany CRC (Art. 3). However, this fishing vessel has been equipped by a private company ("Cap à l'Ouest") since September, 2015 (new decree on September 4th, 2015).

• Only slipper limpets can be unloaded by this fishery. No other species will be preserved on board or unloaded and slipper limpets cannot be rejected to the water (Art. 4).

• For every fishing operation, the fishing vessel has to register the date, the hour and the fishing zone, the quantities of catches and an estimation of the volume of bycatch (Art 5)

• At the end of every year, the operators have to produce an annual Operations Report (including balance sheet), following a specific form transmitted by the DIRM - NAMO. This report will have to include the total catches per year, their use, the costs and operating profits.

• To make sure a renewal of their authorization, the operators have to communicate the catches fishing areas and volume planned for the next year, as well as counts of fishing vessels which could integrate the fishery. (Article 6).

• All the operations must be done without leading to disturbances in the current uses within the bay (Art 7.).

The CRC decided to disengage from the slipper limpets fishery, for economic reasons in July, 2015. A local partner, the " Cap à l’Ouest” company (Vivier-sur-Mer), decided to take in charge the fishing company, for the exploitation of slipper limpets, thanks to a hire purchase contract for the "PAPY" vessel (CRC property) in September, 2015. Accordingly, the decree giving authorization of experimental for slipper limpets extraction was modified on September 4th, 2015 (Decree n°2015- 11700) in order to allow a private company exploiting this resource. The duration of the authorization was however reduced to two years to go until December 31st, 2016, so that in the meantime, the management of the fishery is transferred by a shellfish farming status towards a more traditional management system of fishing.

Dispute settlement : The slipper limpet exploitation activity is approved by the various local actors (fishermen, shellfish farmers, environmental non-governmental organizations, non-profit, etc.). No use conflict was raised by the authorities (DDTM 35) between the various users of the slipper limpet fishing zone into the Cancale bay.

At the local level, there are internal mechanisms of management involving the CRC, the CDPMEM 35 and the DIRM-DDTM / DML to settle possible conflicts. These mechanisms concern fishing zones, seasons, authorized ships, the targeted / not targeted species and the practices of landing. Besides, a base of co-management is in place between the CRC and the CDPMEM to limit the use conflicts within the fishing zone, in particular via an exchange of the respective timetable between activities of fishing and shellfish farming. This local inter-committees communication so allows avoiding simultaneous activities on the same zones. Besides, the Regional Committee on Brittany's fisheries and marine farms (CRPMEM) set up a system of bail between all the fishermen with Maritime affairs to cover the expenses in case of damage by not identified people, including the other actors sharing the fishing area and the shellfish farming.

The administrative decisions can be also disputed in front of the French Administrative court (in Rennes for the Brittany); procedures are thus in position to assure transparent deliberations and control of the legality. It's the same for the decisions of the CRC, which are approached on newsgroups and are adopted by consensus.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 40

3.5.1.2 Institutions

The Bay of Mont Saint-Michel limpet resource is legaly ruled since June, 14 th 2013 and the ratification of the Decree n°2013-6540 allowing experimental samplings of limpets, with the aim to restrain species population expansion and to restore marine bottoms. The legal framework of the fishery is based on several management measures explicited within the seven sections of the Decree. Ille-et- Vilaine DDTM-DML authorities are in charge of the management of this fishery, which means the follow-up and the enforcement of measures stipulated by the Decree. These were set up as recommended by North Brittany CRC and Brittany CRPMEM and following IFREMER scientific advice. These were voted with consent of the government representative (the Britanny region prefect).

State bodies involved in the fishery management system are listed in Table 5.

Table 5 : State bodies involved in the Bay of Cancale limpet fishery management system

Natio nal level Ministry for Ecology, Directory for Marine Fisheries and Fish Farming (Direction des Pêches Sustainable Development Maritimes et de l'aquaculture or DPMA) : and Energy (Ministère de • Implementation of national fishery policy within the frame of the l’Écologie, european common fisheries policy. du Développement Durable et de l’Énergie Or DPMA) Regional / subnational level Region prefecture North-Atlantic-Western Channel Interreg Directory for Sea (Direction (DIRM NAMO) Interrégionale de la Mer Nord Atlantique-Manche Ouest or DIRM NAMO) : • Involvement in the formulation of the Decree on limpet fishery authorization and management Brittany Regional • Regulatory recommendations, proposition of regional scale Committee for Marine conservation/management measures Fisheries (Comité • Representation of Breton fishermen at national level Régional des • Force of proposition and partner for potential scientific research Pêches Maritimes de projects. Bretagne or CRPMEM Bretagne) IFREMER • Scientific research and stock assessment – National body with a range of regional/departmental centers and research facilities treating local issues and notably the station located in Dinard, Ille- et-Vilaine. • Involvement in the formulation of the Decree on limpet fishery autorisation and management in the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel

Departmental / local level

Departmental delegation Departmental delegation for Marine Territories in Ille-et-Vilaine and for Marine Territories in more specifically the Delegation for Sea and Coastline (Department of Ille-et-Vilaine (Délégation Ille-et-Vilaine, 35) Départementale des • In charge of monitoring and regulation of the fisheries. Territoires Marins d’Ille- • In charge of regulation management of the limpet fishery in the Bay et-Vilaine or DDTM/ of Cancale DML35)

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 41

North Brittany Regional • Regulatory recommendations, proposition of conservation / Committee for Shellfish management measures at regional level Farming (Comité • Technical management of the limpet fishery in the Bay of Cancale Régional de la (owner of the harvesting vessel until Summer 2015) Conchyliculture de • Representation of the shellfish farmers of Brittany at national level Bretagne Nord • Force of proposition and partner for potential scientific research Or CRC BN) projects. • Involvement in the formulation of the Decree on limpet fishery autorisation and management in the Bay of the Mont Saint-Michel

Departmental Committee • Regulatory recommendations, proposition of conservation / for Maritime Fisheries management measures at regional level and Marine Fish Farming • Representation of the fishermen of Ille-et-Vilaine at regional level, of Ille-et-Vilaine (Comité management of inter-professionnal cohabitation Départemental des • Force of proposition and partner for potential scientific research Pêches Maritimes et des projects. Elevages Marins d’Ille-et- Vilaine or CDPMEM 35)

3.5.1.3 Management plan

The management framework of the Bay of Cancale limpet fishery is defined by French fisheries management propositions (Code rural et de la pêche maritime Livre IX: Pêche maritime et aquaculture marine et décret n°2011-776). The Decree of June, 14th 2014 allowing experimental sampling was amended on September, 4th 2015 (Decree n° 2015-11700) so that a private company could harvest this resource. This Decree amendment results from the will of the North Brittany CRC to disengage from limpet fishery in July 2015 for economic reasons. The duration of the experimental sampling authorization was also reduced, not extending until 2018, but only until December, 31 st 2016. Between 2013 and July 2015, no one but the CRC or the CRPMEM were allowed to set up a vessel for limpet sampling missions.

A chronology of the consecutive implementation of management measures within the limpet fishery in the Bay of Cancale is presented in Table 6.

Table 6 : Key dates of fishery management framework establishment

Year Management measures / Advancement stage in the management of the fishery 2013 Decree n°2013-6540 Allowance for experimental sampling of limpets to vessels equipped by the North Brittany CRC and/or the Brittany CRPMEM Duration of the sampling entitlement : 5 years(until June, 13th 2018) 2015 Amendment of Decree n°2013-6540, enactment of the new Decree n°2015-11700. (September) Allowance for experimental sampling of limpets to any private fishing company (only one boat is currently geard to harvest and sort/wash slipper limpet onboard) Decrease of sampling entitlement duration : until December, 31st 2016.

3.5.1.4 Consultation, roles and responsabilities As clarified previously, the fishery is regulated according to the same legal framework as the shellfish farming activities presents in the bay of the Mont Saint-Michel. The jurisdictions of the various actors taking part in the management framework are clearly defined in the current regulatory text in force, in particular about:

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 42

- the issuance and amendment of the concession by the Administration (Prefect of Ille-et-Vilaine) - The definition of the main rules about the access to the authorized fishing zones and the current technical measures (CRC of North Brittany and CRPMEM of Brittany).

According to the actual Decree N° 2015-11700, the fishery preserves its status of "experimental removal" until December, 2016. After several meetings gathering the SLP-ALD company, the North Brittany, the DML department of the DDTM 35, and the DIRM NAMO, the DPMA cut as for the future of the slipper limpets fishery: the adapted management system, at the latest in 2017, will become a conventional system under the supervision of the French Fishing Authorities. In the second half-year 2016, the vessel "PAPY" will thus have to obtain one PME (Allow by Putting in Exploitation), Decree n°93-33 of January 8th, 1993), an authorization of European and national fishing and to embark the current statutory equipment onboard (VMS, logbook).

Until September, 2015, the slipper limpet fishery of Cancale bay was managed by a technical point of view by the CRC of North Brittany, the shipowner of the only vessel exploiting the stock of slipper limpet in the bay. The membership in the CRC of North Brittany was compulsory for all the parts implied in the business concerning the slipper limpet in Cancale bay, from fishers to the transformers of the resource. All the functions, the responsibilities and the roles of the members of the CRC are clearly defined by the Decree N° 2011-1701 of November 30th, 2011, repealed by the Decree N° 2014-1608 of December 26th, 2014.

Even if the CRC decided to disengage from the slipper limpets fishery since July, 2015, it will continue to follow the results of the exploitation and to be a part of the fishing management system for the exploitation of slipper limpets, for owner of the exploiting vessel and the closeness between the shellfish farm concessions and the fishing zones of slipper limpets in the Cancale bay.

The tripartite CRC / CRPMEM / DDTM management system understands a process of consultation to obtain information on the fishery with the main concerned parts in particular local information on the resource and its progress in the bay, to strengthen the management system.

3.5.1.5 Long term objectives (Figure 20) The North Brittany CRC and the CRPMEM of Brittany have both long-term objectives to restore the quality of habitats, and so guarantee the sustainability of the marine resources (including the shellfish farming), by reducing the growth of the biomass of slipper limpets, by a valorization of this invasive species.

One of the objectives was to clarify quickly the future of the status of the fishery, what was followed upon the promulgation of the new Decree N° 2015-11700, which states in particular a reduction of the duration of the experimental fishing authorization to the end of 2016 instead of the end of 2018. The DPMA having decided in September, 2015 that the slipper limpet fishery will have to be under the supervision of the French Fishing Authorities before 2017, these changes of the management system and status open the way to the implementation of a real commercial fishing company, also including the obligation for the "PAPY" vessel to get a PME and to conform to all the European and French obligations regarding fishing in 12 nautical miles. Besides, the ALD-SLP company suggests in association with the fishery stakeholders, that once the new management will be implemented (end of 2016), the management system should be improved by increasing the degree of consultation within this one. Each year, the stakeholders will be gathered around a “slipper limpet committee" by the CRPMEM, where the results of the fishery will be presented, in terms of collected biomass, harvest areas, evolution of the slipper limpet abundance in the bay, evolution of bycatch.All these presented data will allow to decide together on the direction to be given to the management of the fishery for the next year.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 43

Figure 20 : Time evolution of the slipper limpet business industry (2013 – 2017). Source : SLP- ALD internal document.

3.5.2 Management system of the fishery

3.5.2.1 Fishery objectives

In a framework document, the ALD-SLP company and the fishing company "Cap à l’Ouest " defined the various short and medium-term fishery objectives.

Since September, 2015, a precise follow-up of fishing zones and their abundance in slipper limpets (living being) has been set up. The first results should be known from the first half of the year 2016. This follows-up has a triple objective: • Biological objectives: better knowledge of the present biomass in the bay, its spatial and temporal evolution, the bycatches and mapping the whole. • Industrial objective: improve the yields on flesh by decreasing the amount of empty shells in the catches. • Objective of management: use the collected data to implement an integrated management of the slipper limpet with the stakeholders of the bay. The collected data will be available for the management authorities (DDTM, DIRM, CROSS), scientists (IFREMER) and other local actors. As long as a scientific evaluation will not be led, this fishing activity will be the only way to observe the evolution of this stock.

In order to reach these objectives and to minimize monitoring costs, while optimizing the equipment and the protocols already implemented, the fishermen defined a new protocol to collect data. This protocol is described below.

Each day, the captain will have to register - The fishing zone, including all dredge hauls, defined by 3 or 4 GPS points; - The number of hauls (in duration and constant speed) to reach the final tonnage, allowing determination the CPUE (Catch Per Unit Effort); - The detailed list of bycatches (photo of the filled in counting sheet)

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 44

During the product processing, the factory is able to define various quality indicators on the raw material: - Yield on production, meaning the ratio weight of flesh (slipper limpet alive) per total tonnage; - Cleanness of shells

These two sources of data will be compiled to create a standard indicator of production of flesh by unit effort (kg of flesh obtained by hauls). After a 6 months test period allowing an estimation of the general state of the population, the analysis of the evolution of this indicator will allow to determine the most interesting site of fishing in term of quality of flesh, composition of bycatches, the available biomasses, etc. In case of recurring decrease of this indicator in historically rich zones, a meeting of dialogue will be organized, gathering at a minimal level the IFREMER, ALD-SLP, "Cap à l’Ouest" and the DDTM 35 to decide which consequences should be given to the exploitation : a decrease of the pressure of fishing, a change of zone or the preservation in the current state. Thanks to these data, the client has requested the IFREMER advice to estimate the stock status and determine a “standard exploitation rate” not to be exceeded to guarantee the sustainability of the resource.At this time, IFREMER needs more longer (and standardized) timeseries data about the catchs of the fishery.

Besides, there is really a willingness of the client (SLP-ALD companies and "Cap à l’Ouest") to improve the safety of the crew aboard the ship, as well as the selectivity of the bycatches. For it, they would like to test the efficiency of a continuous dredge. In agreement with relevant authorities (DDTM 35, centers of safety of ships), trials have been performed in the autumn, 2015 to verify the technical possibility and the results of such a gear.. Unfortunately, the equipment in place was not enough powerful to satisfy the objective (SLP-ALD pers. com., 2016). Hence, more suitable equipment is been searched to match with the current fishing boat.

A new monitoring procedure of the bycatches was also organized aboard ship in the beginning of September, 2015. For each dredge haul, the number of individuals of bycatches species will be recorded by the crew on a specific form fixed at the level of the rotative washer. To help fishermen in inventorying and counting of the ETP species caught, an index card including identification keys for the main species of skates and a list of the ETP species potentially present on the zone will be also attached next to the rotative washer. Just before the landing, the captain will take a photo of the counting sheet of bycatch for records. This new procedure will allow knowing as exactly as possible the composition of catches. This system will give a detailed list of bycatch captured specifically by the fishery and the way to manage the activity of fishing to reduce bycatch.

3.5.2.2 The decision-making process

Until summer, 2015, there were some difficulties in adjusting the fishing operations of the "PAPY" vessel between the CRC, ALD-SLP and the DDTM 35. For these reasons, the landings of slipper limpet were not regular enough to strengthen an appropriate and adaptive process of decision to reach the specific objectives of the fishery. Change in in the shipowner occurred in the beginning of September, 2015 and its commitment to make regular trips and to provide frequent data of catches will from now allow improving in this decision-making process.

Between 2013 and 2015, some information on the performance of the fishery was presented, at least once a year, by North Brittany CRC and discussed during an internal meeting. The reports of these meetings are not widely published, but are available for all those who ask for them. Besides, the detail of the fishing operations and catches are annually transmitted by ALD-SLP to the CRC so that an annual activity report is produced by the latter, according to the Article 6 of the Decree governing the fishery. However, no assessment of exploitation was carried out by the North Brittany CRC between 2013 and 2015. The DIRM-NAMO and the DDTM 35 have never received the data of exploitation concerning this fishery, but it seems that they have not requested it to the North Brittany CRC either.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 45

So, although the client knows the evolution of his activity and has the exploitation data, the annual reports of CRC are lacking and the concerned management departments have no updated information on the fishery.

3.5.2.3 Conformity and application

Several entities work collectively to follow, check and watch the French coastal fisheries. The case of the fishery of slipper limpet of the bay of Cancale is particular because it is an experimental fishery which remains very spatially restricted (concessions of exploitation). The conformity and the application of the regulations in force (Order N 2015-11700) is based on the collaboration of the agents of the Delegation in the Sea and in the Coast of the DDTM 35 with the North Brittany CRC. This co-management exists since the definition of the regulatory framework of the fishery.

The Departmental Sea and Coast department (DML) of the DDTM 35 replaced Maritime affairs (DDAM) in January, 2010 to implement the policy of the government at the level of the maritime territories. This department decentralized by the State has a double role: i) the collection of data to strengthen the regulations, the control of the fishing activities and the landings, and ii) the power of police at sea and on ground. So the DML 35 enforces the maritime and of fishing regulations on its domain of jurisdiction through its agents (DDTM35 – Direction of Territories and the Sea of the department of Ille-et-Vilaine, based to Saint-Malo), in association with the coastguard, the customs, the national Gendarmerie and French Marine (Navy).

Until now, a single fishing boat ("PAPY") exploits these invasive species that are the slipper limpet, for which there is no limit of captures (experimental fishing). Besides, according to all stakeholders, no conflict has been observed between the operators of the fishery and the other present maritime activities in the zone (cf. 3.5.1.1 Legal framework). The implication and the collaboration of the various departments of the State (DDTM35, DIRM NAMO, Naval police, etc.) on a regional scale, assures the efficiency of the management system of the fishery and their operators.

According to the DML35 (DDTM) and the North Brittany CRC, there is no proof of any failure in respecting the regulations in force, in spite of the absence of annual transmission of the data of exploitation of the fishery by the CRC to the departments of the State (DDTM / DIR NAMO). The CRC makes a commitment to produce the assessment of exploitation as soon as possible and to transmit them the DDTM. According to the fishermen and the concerned stakeholders (CRPMEM 35 and DML35), the combination of legal pursuits and the administrative penalties supplies a way of effective dissuasion against the possible failure to respect the regulations by the operators of the fishery.

3.5.2.4 Research program

Since 2003, there is no program anymore of evaluation of the stock of slipper limpet of the bay of the Mont Saint-Michel. Nevertheless, the improvement of the protocol of follow-up of captures by the client (new shipowner "Cap à l'Ouest" and ALD-SLP company) and the more regular registration of these data will allow to have a periodic and updated information about the annual spatial evolution of the resource, at least on the small exploited fraction of the stock. Their short-term objective is to supply reliable data to the scientists of the IFREMER so that he can estimate and express an opinion on the state of the stock of exploited slipper limpet, even to determine an "exploitation rate standard" not to exceed to guarantee the sustainability of the resource.

A project of collaboration between CRC and IFREMER (CANCRE project) had been proposed a few years ago to update the scientific knowledge of the state of the stock of slipper limpet in the bay of the Mont Saint-Michel. But it has never been implemented due to the lack of budget.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 46

3.5.2.5 Monitoring and evaluation of the efficiency of the fishery management system

Until now, as mentioned previously, the specific management system in the fishery is only submitted to an occasional internal examination. Shipowner's changed and its will to improve the targeted species monitoring, added with the change of institutional status of the fishery (passage of an experimental fishing in a professional fishing arranging of one PME in the next two years), suggests that the efficiency of the management system of the fishery will be better followed and estimated.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 47

4 Evaluation Procedure 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment The definition of overlapping fisheries based on the MSC vocabulary is when “two or more fisheries which require assessment of some or all, of the same aspects of MSC Principles 1, 2 and/or 3 within the respective units of certification”.

The fishery under assessment does not overlaps with other fishery certified neither under assessment.

4.2 Assessment Methodologies The version 2.0 of the FCR was used to assess the fishery. The MSC Full assessment Reporting Template used for this fishery was version 2.0 with an adjustment in the assessment tree. CAB proposed a variation request modification for PI 2.5.2 & 2.5.3 in order to address the ecosystem impacts of the introduced species (Crepidula fornicata ). See Appendix 1 for the tables.

Our request included:

• That the requested modifications of the tree will address the measures in place in the fishery to prevent further ecosystem impacts and the information collection to understand and preventing further progression of impact of the introduced species on biodiversity. • That the assessment team is proposing a number of changes to be inserted in the Ecosystem PI scoring tables, as outlined in the variation request.

No comments from stakeholders were received regarding the modification.

4.3 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.3.1 Site Visit The on-site consultation of the stakeholders is an essential stage for the collection of the necessary information, to proceed to a strong evaluation of the fishery. In the process of certification, a stakeholder of the fishery is every person, group or organization which: a) may affect or be affected by the decision of the certification, or b) expressed an interest for the fishery in the course of evaluation of certification, and/or for other resources susceptible to be affected; c) or possess relevant information for the evaluation of the fishery aiming at the certification MSC.

A first contact by e-mail allows explanation on the procedure of assessment according to the MSC standard and the interest of the participation of stakeholder during the stage of collection of information. The following participants are:

• Governmental bodies : the French Agency of the Marine Protected Areas, the Departmental Direction of Territories and the Sea of Ile-et-Vilaine (DDTM 35), IFREMER, Interregional Direction of the Sea of the North-Atlantic Ocean west Channel,(DIRM NAMO), the Brittany Regional Committee for Marine Fisheries (CRPMEM), the Ile-et-Vilaine Departmental Committee for Marine Fisheries (CDPMEM 35), the North Brittany Regional Committee of the Shellfish farming (CRC, Client group).

• Non-governmental organizations of preservation or public interest : AREVAL, ACCETEM, Cooperative Maritime Conchylicole Cancaloise, Association Pays d'Emeraude Mer Environnement (APEME)

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 48

• Companies or private companies : Atlantic Limpet Development company - Slipper Limpet Processing (Client), Cap à l’Ouest fishing company (Client)

On September 2nd and 3rd, 2015, 4 members of the assessment team began the on-site visit in North Brittany, in the department of the Ille-et-Vilaine, in France (Figure 21). A schedule of consultations (agenda) allowed the assessment team to meet the main stakeholders of the fishery, in particular the fishermen, the scientists, the agents of marine environment and of the fishing protection, the administrators of fishing, organizations of shellfish farmers and the non-governmental organizations of preservation and public interest. An announcement of this visit was published on the MSC web site on the end of July, 2015, so that all the concerned stakeholders knew about the possibility to meet the assessment team.

Figure 21 : Location and itinerary of the site visit

4.3.2 Consultations The stakeholders having agreed to participate received an email about the modalities of on-site meeting (date, hour and place), as well as the information that could be asked during the interview. Then, the stakeholders received an official mail from the assessment team of Bureau Veritas, declaring their participation as stakeholder of the fishery in the assessment process. This mail included in particular a more detailed demand of information according to the type of organization and the role of this one. The route and the program of the on-site meetings are presented in Table 7, below :

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 49

Table 7 : Site visit Agenda

Day 1(morning) – 02/09/2015 – in Rennes, France

Departmental Direction of Territories and Phone conference with Carole Gautron Sea of Ile-et-Vilaine (DDTM 35) (Head of " Practices and marine environment» Department at DDTM35)

Former IFREMER researcher scientist - Phone conference with Michel Blanchard Slipper limpet scientific Expert (Scientific expert on the slipper limpet)

Day 1(afternoon) – 02/09/2015 – in Rennes, France

Interregional direction of the Sea - North- Phone conference with Katell Marcillaud Atlantic Ocean & West Channel -, (Responsible for the Fishing and Fish (DIRM NAMO) farming Division within DIRM NAMO)

Regional Committee on Brittany's fisheries Meeting with Jacques Doudet (secretary and marine farms (CRPMEM) general) and Violaine Merrien (Fishing agent) Day 2 (9h-10h) – 03/09/2015 – in Le Vivier-sur-mer, France

IFREMER – Marine Station of Dinard (35) Meeting with Pat rick Le Mao and Claire Rollet (Researchers in halieutics) Day 2 (10h – 16h) – 03/09/2015 - in Le Vivier-sur-mer, France RBF Meeting IFREMER – Marine Station of Dinard (35) Patrick Le Mao and Claire Rollet The French Marine Protected Areas Karine Dedieu (Project Representative Agency (MPAA) – Granville (50) Marine Natural reserve of the Breton Normand Gulf) Regional Committee on IIle-et-Vilaine’s Pascal Leclerc (Corporate Secretary)) fisheries and marine farms (CDPMEM 35) AREVAL Association Delphine S ohier (“Slipper limpet Project Representative”) ACCETEM Association Marcel Le Moal (Representative of Coopérative Maritime Conchylicole ACCETEM and Chief executive of Cancaloise (CCMC) CCMC) APEME « Association Pays d'Emeraude Marie F euvrier (Chief executive of Mer Environnement » APEME) Société Atlantic Limpet Development - Quentin Le Bras (Fishing and Marketing Slipper Limpet Processing (ALD-SLP) Manager, ALD-SLP) (Client group) and Alain Guillemot (Fishing sector Manager, ALD) Hervé Thomas (Co-founder of the company ALD-SLP)

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 50

Fishing company Cap à l’Ouest Stéphane Hesry (Manager of the (New shipowner of PAPY) company Cap à l’Ouest / Shipowner of (Client group) the vessel “PAPY“ Regional committee of the Shellfish farming of North Brittany (North Brittany CRC) and Vice-president of North Brittany CRC) (Client Group)

Jour 2 (16h-17h30) - 03/09/2015 – in Vivier sur mer, France

Client Group : RBF closing meeting and interview with Company Atlantic Limpet Development - client group : Slipper Limpet Processing (ALD-SLP) - Quentin Le Bras Fishing company « Cap à l’Ouest » - Alain Guillemot (Shipowner of the vessel “PAPY“) - Stéphane Hesry Regional committee of the Shellfish farming - Hervé Thomas of North Brittany (North Brittany CRC) Jour 3 (matin) – 04/06/2015 – à Rennes, France Regional committee of the Shellfish farming Conference call with Florence Madec of North Brittany (North Brittany CRC) (secretary general of the North Brittany CRC)

Written and verbal statements were supplied to the assessment team, expressing a wide range of points of view, opinions and concerns with the fishery. The assessment team estimated that the questions raised were discussed in an adequate way and treated as an integral part of the rating process for this fishery, and by consequence, none of these questions require a particular attention, subsequently of that explained in the present report.

Further to the organization of the general information available on the fishery, a number of meetings with the main stakeholders were scheduled by the team to fill in the potential gaps of information, and discuss subjects of concern.

As lead auditor of the assessment team, Arthur RIGAUD, with Macarena GARCIA support, presented the MSC and the assessment process of the fishery at the beginning of every meeting. The expert (CAB) and then the people participating in these meetings introduced themselves. After these introductions, the experts of each Principles of the MSC standard raised precise questions to the various stakeholders, in regard with the analysis of the available information and the possible questioning. The objective of this stage of dialogue is to collect any other information or documents which could help in scoring the fishery.

A number of important points were collected by the assessment team during the interviews of the on- site visit. The assessment team noticed that most of the points raised by the participants were already well documented in the information provided by the Client Group. The information obtained from the consultation with the stakeholders was significantly wider and varied. The main problems such as the the stock status, the interactions with the ecosystem, and the practices of management of the fishery were discussed according to the concerned stakeholders (see Table 8).

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 51

Tableau 8 : Summary of discussions with stakeholders

The French Marine • Management plan of PNM Norman Breton gulf Protected Areas Agency • Environmental study of the maritime activities in the (MPAA) bay of Mont Saint-Michel • Studies on the initial evaluation of marine waters of the marine sub-region North Sea / Channel • Inventory of the species and the habitats of Community interest (ETP species, listed Habitats) Departmental D irection of • General system of management (control of vessels, Territories and Sea of Ile-et- cohabitation with the other métiers, stakes in a co- Vilaine (DDTM 35) exploitation) • System of monitoring and control (categorize and Interregional direction of number of breach of the regulations in force) the Sea - North-Atlantic • System of penalty Ocean & West Channel-, • Regulations in place (DIRM NAMO) • Fight against the poaching and the actions of follow- up • Information concerning the future of the fishery (change of status, SME, license) IFREMER • Scientist data on the stock, the studies carried out (biomass, state of the stock, biology of the species, ect.) • Definition of the exploited stock • Technical assistance (ex : identification of ETP species) • Evaluation of the fishing in terms of durability • How are led scientific studies • Old scientific campaigns on slipper limpet stocks ACCETEM Association • the current cohabitation between the operators of Coopérative Maritime the fishery and the shellfish farmers Conchylicole Cancaloise • Consultation opinion (CCMC) APEM E « Association Pays • Insertion of the fishery in the maritime and coastal d'Emeraude Mer activities background, Question of the by-products Environnement of the transformation of slipper limpets and on the practices of exploitation • Consultation opinion Regional Committee on • General system of management (control of ships, Brittany's fisheries and stakes in a co-exploitation) marine farms (CRPMEM) • Cohabitation with the other businesses • Current regulations and other management tools. Departmental Committee on Consultation opinion concerning the future of the IIle-et-Vilaine's fisheries and status of the fishery and on its durability marine farms (CDPMEM 35) Client group : • Data : landings, discards, bycatch, cohabitation with Company Atlantic Limpet others fishing activities Development - Slipper • Management and control system of business Limpet Processing (ALD- • Management and information in bycatch. SLP) • Strategy of exploitation, characteristics and use of

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 52

fishing Fishing company “Cap à • Traceability (sales data) l’Ouest “ • Project of improvement of the fishery (technical, (new shipowner of PAPY) management of the secondary grips, etc) • Information concerning the future of the fishery Regional Committee of the (change of status, SME, license) Shellfish farming of North Brittany (North Brittany CRC)

4.3.3 Evaluation Techniques

Email was used for all assessment process communications to all fishery stakeholders, along with the public announcements via the MSC website. CAB contacted several stakeholders but they had no specific cause for concern about the impact of the fishery given its small scale and good reputation. Team members were involved searching for stakeholders, and environmental NGOs and scientific researchers in particular, which were felt to be the most appropriate way to make the public announcements.

After compiling and analysing all the relevant technical, written, and anecdotal information, the team scored the fishery regarding to “Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts” in the final tree. The assessment team held one scoring meeting by conference call following the scoring requirements set in the FCR. We reached a consensus on the final scoring of the fishery.

In order for the fishery to achieve certification, none of the Performance Indicators can be scored under 60. In order to achieve a score of 80, all of the 60 scoring issues and every one of the 80 issues must be compliant, with each scoring issue supported with justification. In addition, the fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more in each of the MSC’s three Principles, which are based on the weighted average score for all Criteria and Sub-criteria under each Principle.

Finally, the CAB shall set one or more auditable and verificable conditions for continuing certification if the UoA achieves a score less than 80 but equal to or greater than 60 for any individual PI.

Tableau 9 : Remarkable elements

Component Scoring elements Main/ Not main Data -deficient or not Crepidula fornicata target stock Main Data deficient Solea solea Primary species Minor Data available Scyliorhinus canicula Primary species Minor Data available Buccinum undatum Primary species Minor Data available Scophthalmus rhombus Primary species Minor Data available Raja clavata ETP species Data available Ostrea edulis ETP species Data available Hippocampus hippocampus ETP species Data available

The MSC Risk-Based Framework (RBF) is a precautionary assessment tool for scoring ‘outcome’ PIs where insufficient information is available to score a fishery using the default SGs. Moreover, assess

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 53

the risk that a fishery is having a unsustainable impact on target, primary, secondary & ETP species, and habitats and ecosystems.

The team used the criteria in Table 3 from the FCR to make a decision on whether the fishery was data deficient or not with respect to the PI (Figure 22).

Figure 22 : Criteria for triggering the use of the RBF. Source: FCR

The CAB sent the “Use of the RBF in a Fishery Assessment Form” to the MSC for the use of the RBF tool for the PI 1.1.1. The template was published on the 30 th of July in the MSC website .

The justification for the use following the criteria of the table above was because the stock status reference points are not available, derived either from analytical stock assessment or using empirical approaches.

Indeed, taking into consideration the report of the pre-assessment of Cancale Bay Atlantic Slipper Limpet Dredge Fishery (2012), the time series for monitoring biomass is too short to be used by an assessment model. Instead, it is recommended to use indicators to assess the state of the stock. Available information related to the stock are: the stock biomass and a map tracking between 1996- 2004. But biological limits are not described by biological reference points such as Blim or Flim.

The CAB notified every stakeholders of the proposal to the use of the RBF for PI 1.1.1. During the consultation period we did not receive any comment. However the RBF workshop was very well attended. Indeed, 14 peoples (10 stakeholders, and the 4 CAB members) have participated to the RBF meeting, taking place in La Maison de la Baie du Mont Saint-Michel (Le Vivier-sur-Mer), 03 september, 2015 (Figures 23 & 24). After a short introduction about the MSC assessment and RBF processus, all stakeholders were invited to give their opinion on scoring of the indicators including in the Consequences Analysis (CA) and Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) (see Table 8).

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 54

Figure 23 : List of attendance of the site visit. Source: Bureau Veritas

Figure 24 : Picture taken during the RBF meeting. Source: Macarena Garcia

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 55

5 Traceability 5.1 Eligibility Date The date from which the product will be eligible to be sold as MSC certified is the date of the certification of the fishery. This means that any fish caught by the certified vessel following that date will be eligible to enter the chain of custody as certified product.

The measures taken by the client to account for risks within the traceability of the fishery – and therefore generating confidence in the use of this date for target eligibility – are detailed in the rest of this section. 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery After fishing in authorized area, the boat Papy lands slipper limpet in Le Vivier sur Mer harbor. Each box is numbered and loaded in a refrigerated truck, driven to SLP compagny in Cancale. SLP is the only user of all slipper limpet fished by the Papy. Traceability and identification papers follow each box during the shelling process in SLP company (Figure 25).

Figure 25 : Fishery tracability sheet for quality follow-up. Source : from ALD-SLP company

Traceability up to the point of first landing has been scrutinised as part of this assessment and the positive results reflect that the systems in place are deemed adequate to ensure slipper limpet is caught in a legal manner and is accurately recorded. The report and assessment trees describe these systems in more detail, but briefly traceability can be verified in Table 10 below :

Tableau 10 : Traceability Factors within the Fishery

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 56

existing regulatory or fishery management controls) Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used No risk, there is no non-certified gear used, because only within the fishery one boat is equipped to fish and wash slipper limpet.

Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish No risk, all catches are geotagged (with GPS coordinates outside the UoC or in different geographical reported on geobox) and the fishing area is bounded by areas (on the same trips or different trips) concessions (with GPS coordinates)

Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or No risk, no other boat fish slipper limpet, and only few client group fishing the same stock vessels (trawlers) are fishing seasonally in this area but slipper limpet bycatch are very limited. Risks of mixing between certified and non- No risk identified as all landings are covered by the certified catch during storage, transport, or certificate (because only one boat is landing slipper handling activities (including transport at limpet). sea and on land, points of landing, and sales at auction) Risks of mixing between certified and non- There is no processing at sea certified catch during processing activities (at-sea and/or before subsequent Chain of Custody) Risks of mixing between certified and non- There is no transhipment at sea certified catch during transhipment Any other risks of substitution between fish No other risks from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody Only Slipper limpet ( Crepidula fornicata ) caught in the manner defined in the UoA (Section 3.1 ) shall be eligible to enter the Chain of Custody. Chain of Custody should commence following the first point of landing, at which point the product shall be eligible to carry the MSC logo (under restrictions imposed by the MSC Chain of Custody standard). There are no restrictions on the fully certified product entering further chains of custody.

The client and owner of the vessel is the only one who can use the fishery certificate and sell product as MSC certified.

So far, the fishery lands his catch in only one harbour : Le Vivier-sur-mer (see location in Figure 21). So, there is only one eligible landing point.

6 Evaluation results 6.1 Principle Level Scores

Table 11 : Final Principle Scores Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 85,2 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 94 Principle 3 – Management System 83,8

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 57

6.2 Summary of Scores Table 12 : Score for each of the performance indicators

Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score

1.1.1 Stock status 1,0 98 Outcome 0,333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0,0 80

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,25 85 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,25 75 Management 0,667 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,25 75

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,25 80

2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 100

Primary species 0,2 2.1.2Management strategy 0,333 100

2.1.3Information/Monitoring 0,333 95

2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 100

Secondary species 0,2 2.2.2Management strategy 0,333 100

2.2.3Information/Monitoring 0,333 95

2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 100

Two ETP species 0,2 2.3.2Management strategy 0,333 85

2.3.3Information strategy 0,333 80

2.4.1 Outcome 0,333 95

Habitats 0,2 2.4.2Management strategy 0,333 85

2.4.3 Information 0,333 85

2.5.1 Outcome 0,333 100

Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.2 Management 0,333 95

2.5.3 Information 0,333 95

3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0,333 95

Governance and policy 0,5 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0,333 85

3.1.3Long term objectives 0,333 90

Three 3.2.1Fishery specific objectives 0,25 80

3.2.2Decision making processes 0,25 75 Fishery specific management system 0,5 3.2.3Compliance & enforcement 0,25 85

3.2.4 Monitoring & management performance evaluation 0,25 70

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 58

6.3 Summary of Conditions Table 13 : Summary of Conditions

Condition PI No. Condition Score number 1 1.2.2 By the fourth surveillance audit, the HCRs shall ensure that the 75 exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. This target could be set at the Cancale Bay level (or at the Mont St Michel Bay level), as long as there is confidence that the HCRs in place could act to maintain the stock at or around the target level.

Evidence must be presented to prove this well defined HCRs to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. 2 1.2.3 This PI assesses if sufficient relevant information related to stock 75 structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy.

The client is required to demonstrate that good information is available on all fishery catch from the stock. 3 3.2.2 This PI assesses if there are established decision-making 75 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.

The client is required to provide information on the existence and implementation of decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objective. 4 3.2.4 This PI assesses if fishery-specific management system is subject 70 to regular internal and occasional external review.

The client is required to demonstrate that his own fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. The client has to provide evidence that internal reviews of the fishery-specific management system are regular and evidence that he encourages external review to take place and provides all possible information required.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 59

6.4 Changes in the fishery before and since the Pre-assessment The pre-evaluation was realized in November, 2012. By that time, there was still no official management framework for the slipper limpet fishery. Indeed, the Decree defining the authorization of slipper limpets extraction in Cancale bay was promulgated on June 13th, 2013.The changes arisen in the fishery since the pre-assessment are summarized for each Principle of the MSC standard, in Table 14 below :

Table 14 : Summary of changes in the fishery before and since the Pre-assessment

Main changes since 2012 Important works / studies since 2012 Princip le 1 Stock status Technical improvement of slipper limpets exploitation monitoring aboard vessel « PAPY »

Harvest strategy Proposal of a new monitoring protocol for slipper limpets biomasses of Cancale bay (Consultation between ALD company, « Cap à l’Ouest » and Ifremer) Princip le 2 Master thesis of M. Le Bras (Master degree, Primary/secondary/ Improvement of bycatch monitoring 2013) ETP species (organized by census sheet, Water surrender procedure (Fishery internal identification keys of the ETP / skates document) species, discarding procedure) Identification key of skates species (Fishery Marine Habitats internal document, Le Mao, Ifremer, 2015) Action plan Natura 2000 " Bay of the Mont Ecosystem Saint-Michel " to support and encourage projects of harvest and sustainable valuation of the slipper limpet (French Marine Protected Areas Agency) Princip le 3 Collective implementation of the Decree Governance and legal Entry into force of the Decree N°2013- N°2013-6540 (Prefecture of Brittany, DIRM framework 6540 on June 13th, 2013 on which NAMO, North Brittany CRC, Brittany bases the governance and the CRPMEM, Ifremer) management system of the slipper Fishery Management limpet dredge fishery of Cancale bay : System experimental authorization for harvesting slipper limpets, over 5 years, Collective implementation of the Decree for the CRC and the CRPMEM. N°2015-11700 (Prefecture of Brittany, DIRM NAMO, North Brittany CRC) Entry into force of the Decree N°2015- 11700 on September 04th, 2015, modifying the previous Decree n°2013- 6540 : the company " Cap à l'Ouest " becomes shipowner of the vessel "PAPY" (CRC remains an owner but Fishery internal document (2015) disengages technically from the fishery) and the authorization of experimental fishing reduced to the end of 2016. Implementation of new long term objectives : Slipper limpet Fishery under the French fishing authorities supervision by 2017, obligation to get an exploitation permit and a fishing licence (PME).

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 60

7 References

Arbach Leloup F., Desroy N., Le Mao P., Pauly D., Le Pape O (2008) Interactions between a natural food web, shellfish farming and exotic species: the case of the Bay of Mont Saint Michel (France) Estuarine, coastal and shelf science . 76(1) : 111-120.

Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012. Evaluation d’incidences NATURA 2000. « Concession crépidules » de la baie du Mont Saint-Michel.27 pp

Aubin, D., 1979. Influence de l’envasement sur les activités conchylicoles de la baie de Cancale . Rapport Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Laboratoire Maritime du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Dinard, 78 pp.

Ayata S, Lazure P, Thiebaut E. How does connectivity between populations mediate range limits of marine invertebrates ? A case study of larval dispersal between Bay of Biscay and English Channel (North East Atlantic). Progress in Oceanography 2010;87:18-36.

Blanchard, M., 1997. Spread of the slipper-limpet (Crepidula fornicata ) in Europe. Current state and consequences. Scientia Marina 61 (suppl. 2), 109-118.

Blanchard, M., 2005. Dynamique de la population de crépidule (Crepidula fornicata) en Baie du Mont Saint-Michel , Rapport Ifremer Brest, 33 pp.

Blanchard, M., 2006. Cartographie et évaluation du stock de crépidules en baie du Mont Saint-Michel, en 2004 , Rapport Ifremer Brest, 34 pp.

Blanchard, M., 2009. Recent expansion of the slipper-limpet population ( Crepidula fornicata ) in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel (Western Channel, France). Aquatic Living Resources 22, 11-19.

Blanchard M., Hamon D. 2009. Fiche de synthèse d'habitat "Crépidule". REBENT( réseau benthique)/IFREMER. http://www.rebent.org//medias/documents/www/contenu/documents/Blanchard_Rebent_Natu ra2000_Crepidules_Ed2009.pdf

Blanchard, M., Ehrhold, A., 1999. Cartographie et e´valuation du stock de crépidule en baie du Mont- Saint-Michel. Haliotis 28, 11-20

Cugier P, Struski C, Blanchard M, Mazurié J, Pouvreau S, Olivier F, Trigui JR, Thiébaut E. Assessing the role of benthic filter-feeders on phytoplanktonic production in a shellfish farming site: Mont Saint Michel Bay, France. Journal of Marine Systems 2010;82:21-34.

Cugier P. (Coord.) et al. 2010. Impacts des facteurs environnementaux et des pratiques conchylicoles sur l’écosystème de la baie du Mont Saint Michel et la production conchylicole (IPRAC). Contrat Ministère Ecologie Energie Développement durable et de la Mer – Programme Liteau, Ifremer, 178 pages.

Dupont L., 2004. Invasion des côtes française par le mollusque exotique Crepidula fornicata : contribution de la dispersion larvaire et du système de reproduction au succès de la colonisation. Thèse de doctorat – Université Paris VI.

Dupont L. & Viard F. (2003) Isolation and characterization of highly polymorphic microsatellite markers from the marine invasive species Crepidula fornicata (Gastropoda: Calyptraidae). Molecular Ecology Notes 3: 498-500

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 61

Ellis, J., Mancusi, C., Serena, F., Haka, F., Guallart, J., Ungaro, N., Coelho, R., Schembri, T. & MacKenzie, K. 2009. Scyliorhinus canicula. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T161399A5415204. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009-2.RLTS.T161399A5415204.en

Ehrhold A., Blanchard M., Auffret J.P., Garlan T., 1998. Conséquence de la prolifération de la crépidule (Crepidula fornicata) sur l’évolution sédimentaire de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel (Manche, France). C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, série IIa, 327, n°9, 583-588.

Gosling, E. 2015. Marine Bivalve Molluscs, Second Edition. Elizabeth Gosling. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Guyonnet, B. and Grall, J., 2005: Etude bibliographique des impacts des dragues sur les fonds marins. Rapport contractuel UBO-LEMAR / IFREMER LORIENT. 71 pp

Hamon D, Blanchard M, Houlgatte E, Blanchet A, Gaffet D, Cugier P, Ménesguen A, Cann P, Domalain D, Hautbois AG, 2002. Programme Liteau: la crépidule; identifier les mécanismes de sa prolifération et caractériser ses effets sur le milieu pour envisager sa gestion. Chantier Baie de St Brieuc. Rapport final Liteau. Rapport Ifremer/del.ec, Plouzané-France., 70 pp.

ICES Reports (2012, 2013, 2014)

IFREMER Report, 2004

IFREMER Report, 2011. Diagnostic Bulot de Manche Ouest. https://wwz.ifremer.fr/peche/content/download/40532/553116/file/2011%20Bulot%20Manche%20oues t.pdf

Kloff S., Trébaol L. & Lacroix E., 2007. Pêche aux bivalves & environnement. Panorama mondial - études de cas - application à l’exploitation des praires en Mauritanie. Fondation Internationale du Banc d’Arguin.

Kostecki C., Le Pape O., 2011. Analyse de l’effet de différentes pressions de nature anthropique sur les populations de soles dans les eaux sous juridiction française de la sous région marine Manche - Mer du Nord. Rapport scientifique. Les publications du Pôle halieutique AGROCAMPUS OUEST n°5, 9 p

Le Bras, Q., 2013. La crépidule(Crepidula fornicata) en baie de Cancale: quelles voies d’amélioration de sa commercialisation?.Mémoire de fin d’études Ingénieur spécialité Halieutique. AGROCAMPUS OUEST. 59pp.

Le Mao P., 2007. Le chantier PNEC de la Baie du Mont-Saint-Michel : 5 ans d’études et de recherche pour une meilleure gestion environnementale d’un site emblématique. http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00156/26694/

Minchin, D., McGrath, D., Duggan, C.B., 1995. The slipper-limpet, Crepidula fornicat a (L.), in Irish waters, with a review of its occurrence in the North eastern Atlantic. Journal of Conchology 35, 249- 256. de Montaudouin X., Sauriau P.G., 1999. The proliferating Gastropoda Crepidula fornicata may stimulate macrozoobenthic diversity, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 79, 1069-1077.

Quiniou F., Blanchard M., 1986. Etat de la prolifération de la crépidule (Crepidula fornicata L.) dans le secteur de Granville (Golfe Normano-Beton - 1985). Société Française de Malacologie Symposium de Rochefort Ecologie, Ecophysiologie, Energétique des Mollusques Marins et Continentaux. http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00000/6190/

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 62

Sakai, A., Allendorf, F.W., Holt, J.S., Lodge, D.M., Molofsky, J., With, K.A., Baughman, S., Cabin, R.J., Cohen, J.E., Ellstrand, N.C., McCauley, D.E., O’Neil, P., Parker, I.M., Thompson, J.N. & Weller, S.G., 2001. The population biology of invasive species. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 305–332.

Sellin and al ., 2009 ; according to Trigui and al ., 2007. http://littoral-normand.n2000.fr/sites/littoral- normand.n2000.fr/files/documents/page/Le20domaine20marin2020estuaire2C20estran20sableux20et 20fonds20marins.pdf

SMEL. 2014. Chapitre 1 - Caractérisation de la pêcherie du buccin de l’ouest Cotentin. Chapitre 2 - Impact de la température sur la reproduction du buccin. SMEL Report.Unpublished. Available on request.

Thieltges, D.W., Strasser, M., Reise, K., 2003. The American slipper limpet Crepidula fornicata (L.) in the northern Wadden sea 70 years after its introduction. Helgolander Meeresunters 57, 27-33.

Walne, P.R.,1956. The biologyand distribution of the slipper-limpet Crepidula fornicata in Essex rivers. Fishery Investigations 20, 1-50.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 63

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Appendix 1.1 Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status 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 Stock status relative to recruitment impairment Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI).

Met? NA (RBF) NA (RBF) NA (RBF) Justifi The team triggered the RBF for PI 1.1.1 due to data-deficient. The restrictions and cation rules apply as a result of using the RBF to score PI 1.1.1 is that CA and PSA shall be undertaken if scoring using the RBF. The first step was to identify the most vulnerable subcomponent, in this case the stakeholders agreed to be the geographical range. During the site visit consultation the broad range of stakeholders who attended were able to give good information for the team to generate a Consequence score. The result of the consecuence score is 100. The final score for PI 1.1.1 data-deficient scoring elements depends on both the consequence score and the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) score. PSA uses a semi-quantitative approach to determine the productivity of a species and the level of fishing impact a species/stock can sustain. See RBF CA and PSA. Final score is 96 for PI 1.1.1 b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of post fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock consistent with MSY. has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? NA (RBF) NA (RBF) Justifi cation

References See RBF CA and PSA Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative

point point to reference point Reference NA. RBF used NA. RBF used NA. RBF used point used in scoring stock

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 64

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 relative to PRI (SIa) Reference NA. RBF used NA. RBF used NA. RBF used point used in scoring stock relative to MSY (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 98 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 65

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 - Stock rebuilding Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.2 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Rebuilding timeframes Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 specified which does not years or 2 times its exceed one generation generation time . For time for the stock. cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? (Y/N) RBF (Y/N) RBF Justifi The RBF was used for PI 1.1.1, therefore this PI is not scored. cation b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified simulation modelling, likely based on timeframe. exploitation rates or simulation modelling, previous performance that exploitation rates or they will be able to rebuild previous performance that the stock within the they will be able to rebuild specified timeframe. the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) RBF (Y/N) RBF (Y/N) RBF Justifi cation [List any references here] References

NA OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: RBF CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 66

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1 .2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve responsive to the state of responsive to the state of stock management the stock and the the stock and is designed objectives reflected in PI elements of the harvest to achieve stock 1.1.1 SG80. strategy work together management objectives towards achieving stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y N Justifi MSC defines a harvest strategy as ‘the combination of monitoring, stock cation assessment, harvest control rules and management actions. The evaluation of this PI has focused on the harvest strategy in relation to the Cancale Bay fishery, but has also considered the whole population in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel described in the UoA.The team also considered the specificities of ISBF (see Sections 3.1.2 & 3.3.1).

Overall strategy : The harvest strategy aims at achieving a sustainable exploitation with two main objectives: providing slipper limpet landings and limiting the proliferation of slipper limpet beyond areas currently colonized, to avoid further seabed degradations linked to slipper limpet extent (Loomis & Van Nieuwenhuyze, 1985; Ehrhold et al., 1998). Considering the whole stock of Bay of Mont Saint- Michel, there is no other fishery which can harvest slipper limpet.

Monitoring and stock assessment : There has been no formal stock assessment for this fishery (in the form of a population size estimate nor statistical model) since 2003 (last scientific survey by IFREMER). Until now, there is no current monitorint of stock status in place. However, considering the estimates from Blanchard (2009), a stock increase of 10,000 tons per year in the subpart of the Mont St Michel Bay, and the maximal planned catches of the fisheries at mid-term (less than 5,000 tons), the present exploitation can be considered far from outpassing stock capacities

Harvest control rules: The explotation of the slipper limpet has been recognized through an administrative framework since June 2013 and the publication of an decree allowing an experimental slipper limpet fishery within delimited areas in Cancale Bay. The promulgation of the new Decree N° 2015-11700 (September 2015) states in particular a reduction of the duration of the experimental fishing authorization to the end of 2016 instead of the end of 2018. The DPMA having decided in September, 2015 that the slipper limpet fishery will have to be under the supervision of the French Fishing Authorities before 2017. Essentially, the team considered that there are defined harvest control rules, but that they are still in changing.

Management actions: The harvest strategy is implemented via a set of management tools, including a delimited fishing area, and only an oyster dredge as the fishing gear. The harvest strategy have now been defined by the client (see Sections 3.3.4) and are discussed in detail under PI 1.2.2 below. The management actions written by the fishery consist in collating information on the state of the stock to achieve sustainable management but this management actions are not clearly defined in a written plan.The fishery management is based

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 67

PI 1 .2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place on the decree N° 2015-11700 in force, and the harvest strategy management is decided by the client group.

Therefore, the team considered the harvest strategy of the Cancale Bay slipper limpet fishery is expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80, so SG60 is met.

The team considers that there is a harvest strategy consisting of objectives, [(a) provide slipper limpet landings (which informally infers that landings be sustainable), and b) limit further proliferation inward)], Monitoring – collection of landing information, Commitment to stock assessment; Harvest Control Rules – planned landings of less than 5,000 tonnes; and commitment to develop a written management plan. Therefore, the key elements of the harvest strategy referred are working together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. SG80 is met .

However, at this time, the team concluded that SG 100 is not met , because the harvest strategy is not yet designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. b Harvest strategy evaluation Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the post likely to work based on not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been prior experience or but evidence exists that it fully evaluated and plausible argument. is achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justifi The area allocated to the fishery and its maximal planned catch (5,000 tonnes), cation related to the single boat capacity, can only target a tiny part of stock that is lower than its natural annual increase, as estimated in 2003 by Blanchard (2009). In spite of the 10 years without any updating of the stock evaluation, the current state of knowledge leads to conclude that the exploitation of the fishing area at their maximum possibilities do not reduce the whole population of slipper limpets.

In relation to the limitation of the spreading of slipper limpet beyond areas, the fishery is located on a place where it could limit this extent. Indeed, there is several measures stated by the Decree in force, which support the harvest strategy objective to limit slipper limpet progression : - Delimited fishing areas in Cancale Bay, according to where slipper limpet expansion is active (Art. 2). - Only slipper limpets can be landed by the fishery (no other retained species) and no slipper limpet can be discarded (Art. 4).

These two articles are implemented to miminize any risk of slipper limpet spread and contain slipper limpet spread outside shellfish farms. Exploited areas are located in the north of the flat oyster farms, where oyster farmers are used to discharge the slipper limpets after cleaning their parks, and in the eastern part of the moving front (cf. Figure 1 ). Thereby, the fishery specifically targets the growing parts of the stock, bordering shellfish farms.

Overall, the evidence suggests that the harvest strategy is keeping the stock at (or bringing the stock up to or down to) target levels. The harvest strategy may not

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 68

PI 1 .2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives : given the estimated biomass of the stock, around 250,000 tonnes, it is estimated rate of increase -10,000 tonnes/year (Blanchard, 2009), the limited fishing area with regards to the stock extent (see Figures 1, 6 and 13) and the maximum catch capacity -5,000 tonnes/year, the fishery cannot significantly affect the slipper limpet stock (for more details see part 3.3.3.2). Therefore, SG80 is met . There are, however, some issues: annual fishing reports are not available at this time, and there is a lack of scientific data to have a updating scope of the slipper limpet stock in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel. On this basis, the team concluded that SG100 is not met because the performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guide Monitoring is in place that post is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justifi Monitoring is described in detail in the rationale for PI 1.2.3. The catch monitoring is cation mandatory by the decree in force and provides information allowing to assess the status of the biomass in the small fraction of the stock subject to fishing. On this basis, the team concluded that monitoring in place is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working, so SG 60 is met. d Harvest strategy review Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justifi The administrative framework of the fishery is recent (2013); so, the harvest cation strategy was not subject to significant improvements over the past 3 years. The last improvement happened on September 4 th 2015, with the modified decree allowing the experimental exploitation of slipper limpet in Cancale Bay to give a private company with the right to exploit this resource (and no longer the CRC). The harvest strategy written by the client group (ALD and CCR BN), in consultation with fishermen,has been recently received (September 2015) in response to its new status. This strategy is susceptible to change due to his experimental status.However the experts can state that the fishery is reactive as it can review its harvest strategy when necessary. The team concluded that the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary, so SG 100 is met. e Shark finning Guide It is li kely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Not relevant. cation f Review of alternative measures Guide There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biannual post of the potential of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 69

PI 1 .2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi MSC Definition : the term ‘ unwanted catch’ shall be interpreted by the team as cation the part of the catch that a fisher did not intend to catch but could not avoid, and did not want or chose not to use. However, in cases where there is negligible unwanted catch of a species, the team may use their discretion as to whether the scoring issue would be scored, but the decision should be made in accordance with a precautionary approach. When determining what is ‘negligible’ the MSC does not specify a set cut-off; the team may consider the significance of the catch in relation to things like the proportion of the unwanted catch as part of the total catch or as part of the total amount of unwanted catch, as well as the regularity of the catch occurring when deciding whether it is negligible.

The opinion of the expert group is that there are negligible unwanted catch (negligible volume versus slipper limpet catches with 100% discards and high survival of these discards, see parts 3.2.6, 3.4.1 & 3.5.2, and Table 3 for more details). Moreover, the fishers are not allowed to discard any slipper limpet (mandatory by the decree in force). So the ‘Review of alternative measures’ scoring issue (f) is not scored. Blanchard, M., 2009. Recent expansion of the slipper-limpet population ( Crepidula fornicata) in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel (Western Channel, France). Aquatic Living Resources 22, 11-19. Ehrhold, A., Blanchard, M., Auffret, J.P., Garlan, T., 1998. The role of Crepidula References proliferation in the modification of the sedimentary tidal environment in Mont-Saint- Michel Bay (The Channel, France). Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences Série II - Fascicule A - Sciences de la terre et des planètes 327, 583-588. Loomis, S.H., Van Nieuwenhuyze, W., 1985. Sediment correlates to density of Crepidula fornicata Linnaeus in the Pataguanset river, Connecticut. The Veliger 27, 266-272. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 70

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest cont rol rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood Well defined HCRs are The HCRs are expected post HCRs are in place or in place that ensure that to keep the stock available that are the exploitation rate is fluctuating at or above a expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is target level consistent exploitation rate as the approached, are expected with MSY, or another point of recruitment to keep the stock more appropriate level impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a taking into account the approached. target level consistent ecological role of the with (or above) MSY, or stock, most of the time. for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y N N Justifi The slipper limpet fishery is part of a legal framework through an experimental cation fishing authorization decree produced in June 2013 (Arrêté n°2013-6540) and amended on September 4, 2015 (Arrêté n°2015-11700). The duration of the experimental fishing authorization has been reduced, now extending until December 31, 2016.

The legal framework includes several HCRs established according to CRC and CRPMEM Brittany recommendation and IFREMER scientists advice :

- Experimental fishing authorization for slipper limpet to limit its expansion in bay of Mont Saint-Michel and restore the seabed (Art 1). - Delimited fishing areas in Cancale Bay, according to where slipper limpet expansion is active (Art. 2) - Limited entry fishery (one vessel permit). - All vessels equipped to catch this species (only one at this time, “PAPY“ vessel, fitting-out by “Cap à l’Ouest” company and owned by the CRC. - Only slipper limpets can be landed by the fishery (no other retained species) and no slipper limpet can be discarded (Art. 4) - For each catch, fishers have to notice on a sheet: dates, hours and areas of the fishing operation, the catch quantities and an estimation of bycatch volume (Art 5) - At the end of each year, fishery members have to write a annual operating balance report (Art 6).

On this basis, the team considered that generally understood HCRs are in place for Cancale bay slipper limpet fishery. Moreover, the HCRs are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) because the exploitation of the fishing area at their maximum possibilities can not reduce the biomass of slipper limpets (the maximal planned catches, 5,000 tons per year), related to the single boat capacity. Today the fishing capacity is much lower than the natural biomass increase estimated in 2003 (10,000t per year, Blanchard, 2009. Therefore, SG60 is met .

However, there is a lack of recent data to ensure that the stock is fluctuating above a sustainable level. While the HCRs are defined, they do not currently ensure that the explotation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. SG80 is not met . b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 71

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest cont rol rules (HCRs) in place post robust to the main of a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y N Justifi The management of the fishery is easily adaptive because of its small size (only cation one vessel) and the harvest rules are very strict (cf. Decree in force). In that sense, key uncertainties are taken into account. The main uncertainty concern the estimate of the stock biomass and its evolution, without any scientific survey focus on this species, in Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, since 2004 (Blanchard, 2009). However, the very low fraction of the stock exploited by the fishery (in terms of overlap between the fishing area, see Figures 1 & 6 and part 3.2), the low proportion of maximal potential catches with regard to both the previous estimated biomass and estimates of stock annual increase (see rational before in 1.2.1(a)), , lead to conclude that HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties (IFREMER scientific experts have shared this point of view during the RBF meeting). But some uncertainties remain, as for instance, the risks of local depletion (unpredictable), the impacts of climate change, etc., and there is not strong evidence that the HCRs are robust enough to the main uncertainties as the actual state of the slipper limpet stock biomass and its current evolution. So the team considered SG 80 is met, but not SG 100. c HCRs evaluation Guide There is some evidence Avail able evidence Evidence clearly shows post that tools used or indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are available to implement use are appropriate and effective in achieving the HCRs are appropriate effective in achieving the exploitation levels and effective in controlling exploitation levels required under the HCRs. exploitation. required under the HCRs. Met? Y Y N Justifi Starting in September 2015, ALD and “Cap à l’Ouest” companies have planned to cation set up a clear monitoring of fishing areas and their abundance slipper limpets (alive). The first results should be known during the first half of 2016. Main goals are : - 1) to improve our knowledge about slipper limpet stock biomass and his expansion in time and space. - 2) to use the data collected to feed a concerted management of slipper limpet stock in the bay of Mont Saint-Michel. Collected data will be available for Management Authorities (DDTM, DIRM, CROSS), scientists (IFREMER) and other local actors.

Even though at the time of writing the report the results of 2016 were not ready there is some evidence that the tools are appropriate and effective (SG60). The main HCRs such as the containment of the fishery to one single boat and the ratio potential catches vs stock previously described allow to estimate that are available evidences which indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs, SG 80 is met . But evidence clearly showing effectiveness of the tools in use are not ready yet, so the team considered SG 100 is not met. Arbach Leloup F., Desroy N., Le Mao P., Pauly D., Le Pape O (2008) Interactions References between a natural food web, shellfish farming and exotic species: the case of the Bay of Mont Saint Michel (France) Estuarine, coastal and shelf science . 76(1) : 111-

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 72

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest cont rol rules (HCRs) in place 120. Cugier P, Struski C, Blanchard M, Mazurié J, Pouvreau S, Olivier F, Trigui JR, Thiébaut E. Assessing the role of benthic filter-feeders on phytoplanktonic production in a shellfish farming site: Mont Saint Michel Bay, France. Journal of Marine Systems 2010;82:21-34. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDIC ATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 73

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guide Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range post information related to information related to of information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data is available to abundance, UoA strategy. support the harvest removals and other strategy. information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y N N Justifi A former monitoring (2013 - September 2015) was carried out by the crew who cation only estimated the amount of catch at the end of fishing. Volume and traceability (dates and fishing areas) were well reported for slipper limpet. Since September 2015 (vessel changed of fitting-out), significant improvements of this monitoring have been done. A new procedure for monitoring the catch is in place on the ship. The crew notes the number of individuals captured for each drag line on ad-hoc forms. This improved procedure allows to know as precisely as possible the composition of catches.

The slipper limpets tonnage collected and fishing location are recorded on a logbook. For each dredge feature, one geobox (slipper limpets container) is allocated, and associated with one number which refers to the date and GPS coordinates of fishing. This catch monitoring protocol creates a variable CPUE (Catch Per Unit Effort) for the fishery and a "meat production per unit effort" indicator.

Considering the information collated from these data, the expertise of IFREMER has been asked by the client to assess the stock status and its current biomass (as soon as time series of fishing data are strong enough to run a statistic model) and determine whether the rate of exploitation ensure the sustainability of the resource (once early in 2016).

However, these relevant information only concern the small fraction of the stock subject to fishing. Relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity were collated in 2003 and exist but cannot be considered to provide sufficient information on the present situation at the stock scale.

On the contrary, information on the fleet and fishing activities is totally available and comprehensive.

According to these previous elements, the team concluded that some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy, so SG 60 is met . But the team considered we do not have sufficient and recent relevant information about the stock, so SG 80 is not met. b Monitoring

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 74

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Guide Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required post UoA removals are UoA removals are by the harvest control rule monitored and at least regularly monitored at a is monitored with high one indicator is available level of accuracy and frequency and a high and monitored with coverage consistent degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to with the harvest control there is a good support the harvest rule , and one or more understanding of inherent control rule. indicators are available uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest and management to this control rule. uncertainty. Met? Y Y N Justifi UoA catchs and fishing yields are regularly monitored (for each fishing dredge cation haul) and provide relevent information on the biomass of slipper limpet at the fishing area scale. These indicators are currently available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule, so the team considered SG 80 is met . But all information required by the harvest control rule are not monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty, so the team concluded that SG 100 is not met. c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information post on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justifi Today, there is only one fishery and even one fishing boat targeting the stock. cation In the same fishing area, there is one trawling fishery (around 40 vessels) targeting cuttlefish between April to June, which could get few slipper limpets as bycatch. According to a scientist from IFREMER (P. Le Mao), the survival rate of slipper limpet after being discarded by this cuttlefish fishery is very high and all of the fished individuals are discarded (no commercial value of this species without the flesh separation process on board like on the “PAPY”). In addition, shellfish farmers have also some slipper limpet removals when they clean their oyster farms. Most of them seems only to discard slipper limpet outside farms area, few famers are used to bring back ashore waste from farms cleaning. The quantity of slipper limpets includes in waste is small but undetermined. There is thus good information on all other fishery removals from the stock and SG 80 is met.

References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 75

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is The assessment takes post appropriate for the stock into account the major and for the harvest control features relevant to the rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? RBF RBF Justifi According to Annex PF: Risk-Based Framework (RBF) of the FCR, if the RBF is cation used to asses the PI 1.1.1., a score of 80 is given by default. b Assessment approach Guide The assessment The assessment post estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference reference points points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock category. and can be estimated. Met? RBF RBF Justifi Given a default score of 80 when the RBF is used for PI 1.1.1 cation c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes post identifies major sources uncertainty into account. into account uncertainty of uncertainty. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? RBF RBF RBF Justifi Given a default score of 80 when the RBF is used for PI 1.1.1 cation d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has post been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? RBF Justifi Given a default score of 80 when the RBF is used for PI 1.1.1 cation e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has post status is subject to peer been internally and review. externally peer reviewed.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 76

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Met? RBF RBF Justifi Given a default score of 80 when the RBF is used for PI 1.1.1 cation References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 77

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain p rimary species above the PRI a nd does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high deg ree of post likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above certainty that main the PRI primary species are OR above the PRI and are OR fluctuating around a level If the species is below the consistent with MSY. PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the measures in place that PRI, there is either are expected to ensure evidence of recovery or that the UoA does not a demonstrably effective hinder recovery and strategy in place between rebuilding. all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main , to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The primary species for the MSC are species where management tools are in cation place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points.

Slipper limpets represent more than 99,9 % (2013-2015 average) of the total catches in tons of the fishery (according to data supplied by the Client Group ALD- CRC-“Cap à l’Ouest” to which the “PAPY” vessel belongs now) (Table 3).

No other species, excepted the limpet, thus represents significant captures (all primary, secondary and ETP species reprensent less than 1% the total catch weight). Based on the nomenclature decision-making tree for species covered by Principle 2 of the MSC Fisheries baseline (see. GSA3.1.1 and Appendix GSA4) See Tables 3 & 4, there is no main primary species in this fishery because they do not met neither of the following points:

• The catch does not comprise 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA or • The species is classified as “less resilient” and the catch of the species by the UoA comprise 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA.

Therefore, the list of minor primary species is as follows: - sole, - lesser spotted dogfish - whelk, - brill

Moreover, in 2013, an experimental quality control was performed at the SLP plant to check diversity and volume of unwanted catches in the landings. Control results show that a neglegible quantity of organisms other than the slipper limpet was landed. For more details, please refer to 3.4 part of the report.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 78

The UoA aims to maintain p rimary species above the PRI a nd does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. According to negligible volume of primary species catches and the classification tree of Principle 2 species (GSA3.1.1 and Appendix GSA4 in the FCR), the team considers there are no main primary species. The team considered SG 100 is met . b Minor primary species stock status Guide For minor species that are post below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? Y Justifi All minor species (sole, brill, spotted dogfish) are not below the PRI (Biseau, 2014), cation excepted whelks which the stock (West Channel) showed clear signs of overfishing until 2007. However, recent regulatory measures (prohibiting fishing during January, spacing the sorting grid, reducing the number of traps allowed) seem to have a beneficial effect (Ifremer, 2011). Given the very limited catch of whelk performed by the vessel exploiting limpet (128 kg catched and discarded between 2013-2015, cf. Table 3) in regard of the tonnage of fisheries targeting this species in the Channel-North Sea (>5 000 tons, Figure 17) and their discard while alive after a short dredge haul, the mortality caused by the fishery concerned by the certification on this stock may be considered as negligible For more details, please refer to part 3.4 of the report which includes the figures of all the species.

As mentioned above (2.1.1.a), minor species catches are neglectable, and the team considered there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. SG 100 is met. Biseau Alain, 2014. Résumé graphique des diagnostics et avis émis par le CIEM en 2014. http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00228/33962/

Ifremer, 2011. Situation en 2011 des ressources exploitées par les flottilles References françaises. Synthèse coordonnée par Alain Biseau, Mars 2011. Département Ressources biologiques et Environnement. RBE/2011/01. p. 33.

CRC Bretagne Nord. Fishing Catch Database from vessel PAPY (2012-2015). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 79

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scori ng Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place for the UoA, if strategy in place for the place for the UoA for necessary, that are UoA, if necessary, that is managing main and minor expected to maintain or to expected to maintain or to primary species. not hinder rebuilding of not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species the main primary species at/to levels which are at/to levels which are likely to above the point highly likely to be above where recruitment would the point where be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Firstly, at the legal framework scale : there are measures in place which support the cation UoA for managing main and minor primary species (see parts 3.5.1.1). Indeed, the decree in force stipulates in particular : delimited fishing areas where seabottom is mostly covered by slipper limpet, limiting interactions with others species and remarkable habitats, obligation to discard to the sea any species (except slipper limpet).

The fishery is conducted only on slipper limpet, in accordance with the legal framework (Arrêté n°2015-11700) which allows to land only slipper limpet species. The crew noted the number of individuals captured for each drag line on ad-hoc forms. This procedure allows to know as precisely as possible the composition of catches (including discards, i.e., all species except slipper limpet).

Also see Sections 3.4.1.1 to 3.4.1.4 for more details on MSC approach for each main and minor primary species of the fishery. Given the very limited bycatch of primary species performed by the fishery targeting slipper limpet and knowing that all are discarded (mostly alive), the mortality caused by the fishery on these stocks may be considered as negligible.

Secondly, at the fishery internal management scale: The facilities on board are designed to reject as quickly as possible both primary-secondary species and ETP species thanks to lifts on the deck (automatic sorter) and there has been an internal “water surrender” procedure for bycatch (primary and secondary species) and ETP species implemented specifically for this fishery since 2013, in order to give directives/measures to decrease bycatch mortality.

The majority of species caught look in very good condition, mostly because dredge hauls are very short (less than 5 minutes). In addition, all species tend to stay on the surface of the bed slipper limpets gradually as the dredge is being filled. Species are not crushed by the weight of the slipper limpets load. Former monitoring operations from 2013 to June 2015 roughly approximated bycatch. The crew only estimated the amount of catch for each species before throwing them back to the water before reporting globally ay the end of the fishing day. But, since September 2015, the new strategy in place has been improving the catchs monitoring. For each dredge haul, the crew records the number of individuals captured on a suitable sheet (attached to the rotary washer), where all potentials primary and secondary species are identified. This quantitative procedure

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 80

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. managing main and minor primary species is much more robust.

At each step of the fishing operation process, the main objectives of fishers are to minimize bycatch and mortality rate of bycatch specimen; and identify and count as much as possible all species caught by the dredge. Futhermore, the client (SLP-ALD companies and "Cap à l’Ouest") wants improve the safety of the crew aboard the ship, as well as the selectivity of the bycatches. For it, they would like to test the efficiency of a continuous dredge. Trials have been performed in the autumn, 2015 to verify the technical possibility and the results of such a gear. Unfortunately, the equipment in place was not enough powerful to satisfy the objective Hence, more suitable equipment is been searched to match with the current fishing boat (SLP-ALD pers. com., 2016).

Additionnal details about the sorting process onboard : the unloading of dredges is done into a hopper for a first manual sorting of bigger unwanted organisms or miscelleanous objects (oyster shells, plants, rocks…) and both possible primary and secondary species. Then, the cargo is passed through a rotary washer, which washes the chains of slipper limpets in seawater to rid mud residues, sand and microfauna associated with slipper limpets’ blocks.

Overall, the team concluded that there is an “operational” strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and minor primary species. SG 100 is met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species fisheries/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Y Y Y Justifi As mentioned above in PI 2.1.2.a, there are elements which support high cation confidence that the strategy in place is working and effective, especially because the volume of unwanted catches is insignificant and their survival after discarding is high. For more details, please refer to part 3.4.1 of the report. The team concluded that SG 100 is met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi As mentioned above in PI 2.1.2.a and b, there is clear evidence that the strategy in cation place is becoming successful and is achieving its overall objective (see (a)), especially because the volume of unwanted catches is insignificant and their survival after discarding is high. For more details, please refer to part 3.4.1 of the report. The team concluded that SG 100 is met. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 81

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Y Y Y Justifi S. canicula is the only shark species that this fishery interacts with and there is a cation high degree of certainty that shark finning of this or any other shark species does not take place in this fishery, because only slipper limpet is landed. S. canicula is a bycatch primary species, but the volume of bycatch is neglectable and their survival after discarding is high. The team considered SG 100 is met. e Review of alternative measures Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial post potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main primary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. primary species and they primary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Since 2012, a catch tracking sheet allows to record the quantities caught for some cation current identified species (in weight or number: whelk (kg), sole (nb), brill (nb), spotted dogfish (nb). In 2013, a “water surrender” procedure for bycatch (both primary and secondary species) was written in order to give directives/measures to decrease the catch mortality.. Since September 2015, a new catch tracking sheet is in place onboard that displays all potentials primary and secondary species. The crew just must tick each identified species. Finally, ALD-SLP and “Cap à l’Ouest” companies would test the effectiveness of a pumping system dredge to improve the selectivity of fishing operations (allowing to reduce the bycatch ). In agreement with the competent authorities (DDTM, ship security center), tests will be carried out in autumn 2015 to validate its technical feasability and the potential of this gear. Overall, since the start of the fishery, there is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch. The team concluded that SG 100 is met. [List any references here] References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 82

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available available and is adequate impact of the UoA on the and is adequate to to assess with a high main primary species with assess the impact of the degree of certainty the respect to status. UoA on the main primary impact of the UoA on species with respect to main primary species with status. respect to status.

Met? Y Y Y Justifi As mentioned above in PI 2.1.1.a and 2.2.1.a, there is no main primary species. cation Even if, there was not a robust systematic quantification of catches (primary and secondary species) other than slipper limpet between June 2012 and June 2015, the available quantitative information show that primary species catches are neglectable (see Table 3). Overall, the team considered information are adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA as non-existent. Moreover, the current system of recording provides information for each haul and seems sufficient and adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on primary species. For more details, please refer to part 3.4.1 of the report. The team concluded that SG 100 is met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Y Justifi As explained for PI 2.1.2 and 2.1.3.a, according to internal catch monitoring of the cation fishery (2013 to 2015), volumes of minor primary species are neglectable and some quantitative information are adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status (see Table 3) . For more details, please refered to part 3.4.1 of the report. The team concluded that SG 100 is met. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main primary to manage main Primary manage all primary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N Justifi As mentioned above in PI 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3.a, information are available and cation adequate to support a strategy which manages both main and minor Primary species. SG 80 is met. But it is not possible to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective, because there is not robust quantificative information performed for all minor primary species. Overall the team considered SG 100 not met. References

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 83

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 84

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain s econdary species above a biological based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main secondary species stock status Guide Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree of post are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based OR limits. OR If below biologically based limits, there are measures If below biologically based in place expected to limits, there is either ensure that the UoA does evidence of recovery or not hinder recovery and a demonstrably rebuilding. effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The fishery is conducted only on slipper limpet, in accordance with the legal cation framework (Arrêté n°2015-11700) which allows to land only slipper limpet species. The crew noted the number of individuals captured for each drag line on ad-hoc forms. This procedure allows to know as precisely as possible the composition of catches (including discards, i.e., all species except slipper limpet).

As mentioned above in PI 2.1.1, the catch monitoring data, collected uniformly since 2013 (Table 3), allow to highlight the predominance of slipper limpets on these fishing areas. On average, in terms of tonnage, the slipper limpet is fished at 99.9%. In situs, Le Bras (2013), has counted only 17.7kg bycatch (both primary and secondary species) which have been all discarded back to the water , for 10.322 kg of slipper limpets fished, during one fishing day of the vessel. According to neglectable volume of secondary species catches (see Tables 3 & 4) and the classification tree of Principle 2 species (GSA3.1.1 and Appendix GSA4 in the FCR), the team considers there is no main secondary species. By default, the team considered SG 100 is met.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 85

The UoA aims to maintain s econdary species above a biological based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. b Minor secondary species stock status Guide For minor species that are post below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species

Met? Y Justifi Minor species are mainly represented by spider crabs , farmed oysters, cuttlefish cation and small crabs/fishs species . Large variations in the composition of catches are observed, depending on the area and the fishing season. From May to October, catches are dominated by spiders crabs and cuttlefish that come to breed within the bay. In winter, the spotted dogfish (primary species) are more numerous. The quantity of oysters is, in turn, highly dependent on the fishing area (higher close to oysters areas borders). These spatio-temporal variations explain the high variability in catches. As mentioned above in PI 2.1.1(a & b), according to fishing data collection, the volume of minor secondary species is unsignificant. Moreover, only a few microfauna species associated with slipper limpet that have not been separated during onboard washing are landed, but this volume is neglectable too. Please refer to part 3.4.2 in the report dealing with secondary species, for more details.

Overall, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor secondary species. The team concluded that SG 100 is met. References CRC Bretagne Nord. Fishing Catch Database from vessel PAPY (2012-2015).

OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN DICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 86

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing s econdary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strat egy in post place, if necessary, which strategy in place, if place for the UoA for are expected to maintain necessary, for the UoA managing main and minor or not hinder rebuilding of that is expected to secondary species. main secondary species maintain or not hinder at/to levels which are rebuilding of main highly likely to be within secondary species at/to biologically based limits or levels which are highly to ensure that the UoA likely to be within does not hinder their biologically based limits or recovery. to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Same explanations and argues as in PI 2.2.1.a. and PI 2.1.1 a., SG 100 is met. cation b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Same explanations and arguments as in 2.2.1 b. and 2.1.1.b., SG 100 is met. cation c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi Same explanations and arguments as in 2.1.2 c. cation Moreover, after landing, the shell and the flesh of each slipper limpet are separated in the plant during a three-phase transformation process. From this process, most of unwanted elements are: small crabs (size between 3 and 10 mm), sea anemones (1cm long), sea squirts Styela clava , whelks, Buccinum undatum , and hermit crabs Pagurus sp. Other organisms present in anecdotally numbers are: Lepadogaster fish, nudibranchs, of sponges, squat lobster, a crab Dromia personata and Pisa . On one metric ton of landed slipper limpets less than 250 small individuals are landed (which represents less than 0,01 % of catch weight). Evidence below clearly proves that the strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a).The team

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 87

There is a strategy in place for managing s econdary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. concluded that SG 100 is met. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant) Justifi Not relevant here (see PI 2.1.2 d). cation e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justifi There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial cation potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main secondary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y Y Guide Same explanations and arguments as in PI 2.1.2 e. post The team concluded that SG 100 is met. [List any references here] References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 88

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Informati on on the nature and amount of s econdary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available available and adequate impact of the UoA on the and adequate to assess to assess with a high main secondary species the impact of the UoA on degree of certainty the with respect to status. main secondary species impact of the UoA on with respect to status. main secondary species with respect to status.

Met? Y Y Y Justifi Same explanations and arguments as in PI 2.1.3 a. cation Between June 2012 and June 2015, there was not a robust regular quantification of catches (primary and secondary species) other than slipper limpet. But available quantitative information were sufficient to demonstrate that secondary species catches are insignificant. Hence there are adequate information to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA as non-existent. The current system of recording provides information for each haul, which seems largely sufficient and adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoA on main primary species. For more details, please refer to part 3.4.2 of the report. The team concluded that SG 100 is met . b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor s econdary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? Y Justifi As mentioned for PI 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.a, according to internal survey of the fishery cation (2012 to 2015), volumes of minor secondary species are neglectable and some quantitative information are adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. For more details, please refer to part 3.4.2 of the report. The team concluded that SG 100 is met. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main secondary to manage main manage all secondary species. secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective . Met? Y Y N Justi fi As mentioned above in 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.a, information are available and cation adequate to support a strategy which manages minor secondary species. SG 80 is met . But it is not possible to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective, because there is not a robust quantification performed for all minor secondary species. Overall the team considered SG 100 not met .

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 89

Informati on on the nature and amount of s econdary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. References [List any references here] OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NU MBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 90

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or post international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the combined effects of there is a high degree of the population/stock are the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the known and likely to be population/stock are combined effects of the within these limits. known and highly likely MSC UoAs are within to be within these limits. these limits. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There is a number of protected areas designated under the EC Habitats and Birds cation directives within the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel,. Species of conservation concern include over 25 birds species, but also fish, i.e., Allis shad ( Alosa alosa ), Twaite shad ( A. fallax ), River lamprey ( Lampetra fluviatilis ), Sea lamprey ( Petromyzon marinus ), Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) and some skates/rays, and mammals, i.e., Grey seal ( Halichoerus grypus ), Harbour porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ), European otter ( Lutra lutra ) and Bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ). Listing of all species of conservation concern within the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel is available via these two links :

https://inpn.mnhn.fr/site/natura2000/FR2500077/tab/especes https://inpn.mnhn.fr/site/natura2000/FR2510048/tab/especes

In the context of the EC Birds and Habitats Directives, the “Agence des Aires Marines Protégées” (AAMP) evaluated the interactions of various gear types with the qualifying habitats and species of designated protected sites (Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012 ; Mary, 2010 ; Le Fur, 2010). For the dredge slipper limpet fishery, it was concluded that there is no accidental bycatch of any bird, fish and marine mammal species listed under the EC Habitats and Birds directives.

Only 3 ETP species (listed as OSPAR species, see link : http://www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/species-habitats/list-of-threatened-declining- species-habitats ) have been clearly identified (see Tables 3 & 4) and catches are neglectable : Ostrea edulis (Flat Oyster), Hippocampus hippocampus (Short- snouted seahorse, less than 10 individuals caught since 2013) and Raja clavata (Thornback ray; <10 thornback rays in 2013) and, potentially other species of skates/rays (<120 individuals for all rays/skates species since the beginning of the fishery, in 2012, not systematically determined at the species level), mainly released alive.

Please refer to part 3.4.3 in the report, deals with ETP species, for more details.

Furthermore, all the stakeholders who were present at the site visit agreed that interactions with birds or any other protected species are not an issue in this fishery.

Overall, there is therefore a high degree of certainty that the combined effects of the

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 91

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species fishery (MSC UoAs) are within national and international protection limits. The team concluded that SG 100 is met. b Direct effects Guide Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree of post the UoA are likely to not the UoA are highly likely confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP to not hinder recovery of no significant detrimental species. ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Y Y Y Justifi In the context of Natura 2000, the AAMP evaluated the interactions of various gear cation types with the qualifying habitats of designated protected sites based on the available literature (Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012 and Le Fur, 2010). The AAMP study concluded that this fishery (with dredge) could not have direct impacts on species of conservation concern such as birds, fish and marine mammal species listed under the EC Habitats and Birds directives.

Only 3 ETP species (listed as OSPAR species, see link : http://www.ospar.org/work-areas/bdc/species-habitats/list-of-threatened-declining- species-habitats ) have been identified during the fleet operation from 2013 to 2015. : Ostrea edulis (Flat Oyster), Hippocampus hippocampus and Raja clavata . The quantities are non significant (see Tables 3 & 4).

Based on the information gathered during the site visit workshop and from the AAMP (see above and see section 3.4.3), there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery (UoA) on ETP species. The team determined that SG 100 is met. c Indirect effects Guide Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of post considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly no significant detrimental likely to not create indirect effects of the unacceptable impacts. fishery on ETP species. Met? Y Y Justifi Same explanations and arguments as in PI 2.3.1 a and b. The AAMP study (Le cation Fur,2010) and the “Baie du Mont Saint-Michel Environnement Association” study (Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012) concluded that this fishery (with dredge) could only have very limited indirect effects (possible disturbance and noise from vessel operations) on species of conservation concern, and these are bearable according to the small areas under fishing pressure. Based on the information gathered during the site visit workshop and from the AAMP (see above and see section 3.4.3), there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery (UoA) on ETP species. The team determined that SG 100 is met. Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012. Evaluation d’incidences Natura 2000. Concessions “Crépidules” en Baie du Mont Saint-Michel (35). Février 2012. 27 pp

References Mary M. 2010. Document d’Objectifs Natura 2000 - Baie du Mont-Saint-Michel: Document de synthèse. Conservatoire du littoral, DREAL Bretagne, DREAL Basse- Normandie, 93 p.

Le Fur, 2010. Référentiel pour la gestion dans les sites Natura 2000 en mer - Tome

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 92

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species 1 Pêche professionnelle. Activités - Interactions - Dispositifs d’encadrement. Report by Agence des Aires Marines Protegees. 152 pp. Available online at: http://www.airesmarines.fr/Documentation/Referentiels-pour-la-gestion-des-sites- Natura-2000-en-mer OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 93

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive strategy UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP in place for managing the ETP species, and are species, including UoA’s impact on ETP expected to be highly measures to minimise species, including likely to achieve national mortality, which is measures to minimise and international designed to be highly mortality, which is requirements for the likely to achieve national designed to achieve protection of ETP and international above national and species. requirements for the international requirements protection of ETP for the protection of ETP species. species. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Within Bay of Mont Saint-Michel, a number of sites and their qualifying features cation have been designated under the EC Birds and Habitats Directives. In accordance with EU legislation, an appropriate assessment (i.e. impact assessment) must be carried out prior to any project (which may include fisheries) within these sites. There is therefore a framework in place which manages any human activities which may affect protected habitats and species. For more details, please refer to part 3.4.3 of the report. Considering that dredge fishery have been assessed by the AAMP as having no impact on the qualifying features of these sites (Association Baie du Mont Saint- Michel, 2012 ; Le Fur,2010), the team concluded that there is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. SG100 is therefore met. b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that are expected to place that is expected to comprehensive strategy ensure the UoA does not ensure the UoA does not in place for managing hinder the recovery of hinder the recovery of ETP species, to ensure ETP species. ETP species. the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Y Y N Justifi Stakeholders (including fishers, ALD, Ifremer and AAMP) confirm that this fishery cation does not impact on ETP species. ETP species catches are neglectable, only 3 ETP species (listed as OSPAR species) have been clearly identified (see Tables 3 & 4) : Ostrea edulis (Flat Oyster), Hippocampus hippocampus (Short-snouted seahorse, less than 10 individuals caught since 2013) and Raja clavata (Thornback ray; <10 thornback rays in 2013) and, potentially other species of skates/rays (<120 individuals for all rays/skates species since the beginning of the fishery, in 2012, not

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 94

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Since 2013, an internal “water surrender” procedure for bycatch (primary and secondary species) and ETP species (fish, as neither mammals nor birds are caught) has been implemented specifically for this fishery, in order to give directives/measures to decrease the catch mortality. Moreover, Océanopolis experts and Ornithological station of “Ile Grande”, participated in the drafting of this procedure, especially for parts for handling and releasing water marine mammals and seabirds in case of hypothetical catches.

The identification of protected species of skates/rays, not easy without specialists on board, is not always well done, which makes it difficult to estimate catches for these species. To limit and reduce possible confusions, there will be a identification key for rays (developed by IFREMER) with the fishery members, by the end of 2015. Overall, there is a fishery specific strategy in place that is expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. The team considered SG 80 is met. The strategy is comprehensive but according to some skates/rays identification issues, and based on a precautionary approach, the team considered that until the system of identification perfectly working, SG 100 is not met. c Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is an objective The post considered likely to basis for confidence , strategy/comprehensive work, based on plausible based on information strategy is mainly based argument (e.g., general directly about the fishery on information directly experience, theory or and/or the species about the fishery and/or comparison with similar involved. species involved, and a fisheries/species). quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Y Y N Justifi The precautionary management strategy of the fishery is based on theoretical cation document (Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012 ; Le Fur, 2010), but all information collected by the fishery (ETP recording sheets, “water surrender” procedure, ..) give a confidence level that the strategy is working. So, the team considered there is an objective basis for confidence, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved , SG 80 is met . But, there is no specific quantitative analysis supporting high confidence that the strategy will work, so team concluded that SG 100 is not met. d Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Y N

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 95

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Justifi Based on arguments mentioned previously in PI 2.3.2 a. and b., and thus cation considering that the fishery has no impact on ETP species, the team considered there is evidence that the strategy/comprehensive strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, so SG 80 is met. However, there must be clear evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective to met SG 100. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial post potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP ETP species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Justifi In 2013, a “water surrender” procedure for bycatch (primary and secondary) and cation ETP species (mammals, birds and fish) was written in order to give directives/measures to decrease the catch mortality. Océanopolis experts and Ornithological station of “Ile Grande”, participated in the drafting of this procedure, especially for parts for handling and release water marine mammals and seabirds (potential catches, not observed since the bginning of the fishery). An assessment of survival rate conducted by ALD and fishers showed the majority of species caught are in very good condition (very high survival rate for ETP species skates and sea-horses ), mostly because drag lines are short (<5 minutes). These species tend to stay on the surface of the bed formed by the slipper limpets while the dredge is being filled. Species are not crushed by the weight of the slipper limpets load. Finally, ALD-SLP and “Cap à l’Ouest” companies would test the effectiveness of a pumping system dredge to improve selectivity of catches (mostly to facilitate the sorting of slipper limpet and minimize bycatch). In agreement with the competent authorities (DDTM, ship security center), tests will be carried out in autumn 2015 to validate the technical feasibility and the results of such a gear.

So, since the start of the fishery, there is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species. The team concluded that SG 80 is met. However, the team considered SG 100 is not met , because the review of the potential effectiveness is not biennal, given that the fishery is recent. Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012. Evaluation d’incidences Natura 2000. Concessions “Crépidules” en Baie du Mont Saint-Michel (35). Février 2012. 27 pp Le Fur, 2010. Référentiel pour la gestion dans les sites Natura 2000 en mer - References Tome 1 Pêche professionnelle. Activités - Interactions - Dispositifs d’encadrement. Report by Agence des Aires Marines Protegees. 152 pp. Available online at: http://www.airesmarines.fr/Documentation/Referentiels-pour-la-gestion-des-sites- Natura-2000-en-mer. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 96

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 97

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: • Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3 • 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 adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is adequate available to assess with a UoA related mortality on to assess the UoA high degree of certainty ETP species. related mortality and the magnitude of UoA- impact and to determine related impacts, whether the UoA may be mortalities and injuries a threat to protection and and the consequences recovery of the ETP for the status of ETP species. species. Met? Y Y N Justifi Stakeholders (including fishers, Ifremer and AAMP) confirm that this fishery does cation not impact on ETP species. This is further supported by the AAMP assessment (Le Fur, 2010) and the “Baie du Mont Saint-Michel” Association study (2012) that slipper limpet dredge fishery do not interact with any of the qualifying features of sites designated under the EC Birds and Habitats Directives (see section 3.4.3). The facilities on board are designed to reject as quickly as possible both primary- secondary species and ETP species, lifts on the deck (automatic sorter). Former monitoring operations by the crew (2013 - June 2015) made an approximation of bycatch . The crew only estimated the amount of catch for each species before throwing them back to the water.

The new strategy in place since September 2015 allows a significant improvement of monitoring catches. For each dredge haul, the crew notes the number of individuals captured on a ad-hoc sheet (attached to the rotary washer), where all potentials primary-secondary species and ETP species are displayed. Thus, the counting is much more robust. Moreover, a specific sheet for the identification of main skates/rays and other ETP species present in the area is also attached to the previous sheet in order to facilitate the identification of these ETP species.

On landing, the skipper takes a picture of the counting sheet bycatch. This improved procedure allows to know as precisely as possible the composition of ETP species catches.

The majority of species caught are in very good condition and species are not crushed by the weight of the slipper limpets load. Indeed, an assessment of survival rate conducted by ALD and fishers showed the majority of species caught are in very good condition (survival rate very high for ETP species skate/rays and hypocampus), mostly because dredge hauls are very short (less than 5 minutes). Species tend to stay on the surface of the bed slipper limpets gradually as the dredge is being filled. Species are not crushed by the weight of the slipper limpets load. Thus, exhaustive information are collected on each dredge feature and provide information on the very limited catches of ETP species.

Overall, the team considered that the new strategy in place since September 2015 is adequate to assess the magnitude of UoA-related impacts. SG 80 is met.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 98

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: • Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3 • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. However, due to the short term implementation of the information gathering strategy the team would need more evidences to score SG100. b Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to measure trends and support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive strategy ETP species. manage impacts on ETP to manage impacts, species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N Justifi As mentioned in PI 2.3.3 a., accurate and verifiable information are available from cation the AAMP (Le Fur, 2010) and the “Baie du Mont Saint-Michel” Association (2012), and also from the client group ALD-“Cap à l’Ouest” (assessment of survival rate, ETP species recording sheets, …) on this fishery’s impacts on ETP species.

The team considered information are adequate to support a strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, but can not yet evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives, SG100 is not met. Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012. Evaluation d’incidences Natura 2000. Concessions “Crépidules” en Baie du Mont Saint-Michel (35). Février 2012. 27 pp

Le Fur, 2010. Référentiel pour la gestion dans les sites Natura 2000 en mer - Tome References 1 Pêche professionnelle. Activités - Interactions - Dispositifs d’encadrement. Report by Agence des Aires Marines Protegees. 152 pp. Available online at: http://www.airesmarines.fr/Documentation/Referentiels-pour-la-gestion-des-sites- Natura-2000-en-mer OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 COND ITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 99

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and PI 2.4.1 function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the commonly structure and function of to reduce structure and encountered habitats to a the commonly function of the commonly point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm. Met? Y Y N Justifi The slipper limpet fishery of Cancale bay takes place within a classified zone cation Natura 2000 for which a large number of documents has been published. Various elementary habitats were identified in the inventory conducted as part of the drafting of the document objectives of Natura 2000. The fishing activity takes place mainly on areas of medium sands (see Figures 1 & 19 and part 3.4.4). In the context of Natura 2000, the AAMP evaluated the interactions of various gear types with the qualifying habitats of designated protected sites based on the available literature (Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012, 2012 and Le Fur, 2010). For dredge fishery, it was concluded that this gear type could have a physical impact on the benthic features they encounter (Guyonnet et al., 2005) especially when the area is frequently fished (Le Mao com. pers. This is why the fishing activity is limited on specific fishing areas (mandatory by the Decree in force, see figure 1 & part 3.5.1.1) permitted for fishing slipper limpet. Several studies have been carried out which support recovery times of the habitats affected, e.g. Hiddink et al 2006 (Ecosystems 9: 1190-1199) and more recently, Eigaard and al.(2015). Hiddink & al. (2006) have demonstrated with models that 90% of benthic species densities living on sand sea bottom have recovered 111 days after bottom gear haul. Eigaard and al.(2015) have established dredge “footprints” (total area and severity of the gear’s impact) related to the sediment type of the habitat.

The cumulated area is very small in regard of Cancale Bay area. Ifremer scientists precised there is no specific habitat modification by using dredges to harvest slipper limpets, and the fishing areas are not overlapping sensitive habitats. Dredging activity has a structuring effect on the sea bottom at low frequencies. Concerning the sea bottom covered by slipper limpet, fishing is m oreover supposed to limit the proliferation of this species beyond areas currently colonized, to avoid any further seabed degradations linked to slipper limpet extent (Loomis & Van Nieuwenhuyze, 1985; Ehrhold et al., 1998) and related consequences for essential fish habitats, like flatfish nursery grounds (Kostecki et al., 2011). The Natura 2000 plans recommend that this fishery is in place to avoid further disturbances linked to the increase in the slipper limpet spatial extent.

On this basis, the UoA/fishery is considered highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The team considered SG80 is met . There is, however, no direct evidence which demonstrates this for the fishery. As such, SG100 is not met. b VME habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the VME structure and function of to reduce structure and

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 100

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and PI 2.4.1 function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. habitats to a point where the VME habitats to a function of the VME there would be serious or point where there would habitats to a point where irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible there would be serious or harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Some sensitive habitats (VME) exist within Cancale Bay (in Bay of Mont Saint- cation Michel more widely). These include Zostera fields, sand mason ( Lanice conchilega ) banks and Sabellaria reefs. As explained in part 3.4.4, there is no overlap between the fishery and these habitat types as they occur predominantly in inshore waters and the fishery takes place in small areas close to oyster parks, in deeper water (from 7m to 50m). The incidence analysis document written by the Baie du Mont Saint-Michel Association (2012) shows slipper limpet dredge fishery is not overlapping sensitive Natura 2000 habitats (see figure in part 3.4.4). On this basis, there is evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. The team concluded that SG100 is met. c Minor habitat status Guide There is evidence that post the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Justifi According to the MSC definition of minor habitat and to the Ifremer consultation, cation there is no minor habitat in the fishing area. By default, the team concluded that SG 100 is met .

Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012. Evaluation d’incidences Natura 2000. Concessions “Crépidules” en Baie du Mont Saint-Michel (35). Février 2012. 27 pp

Eigaard, O. R., Bastardie, F., Breen,M., Dinesen, G. E., Hintzen, N. T., Laffargue, P., Mortensen, L. O., Nielsen, J. R., Nilsson, H. C., O Neill, F. G., Polet, H., Reid, D. G., Sala, A., Sko¨ld, M., Smith, C., Sørensen, T. K., Tully, O., Zengin, M., and Rijnsdorp, A. D. Estimating seabed pressure from demersal trawls, seines, and dredges based on gear design and dimensions. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv099.

Ehrhold, A., Blanchard, M., Auffret, J.P., Garlan, T., 1998. The role of Crepidula References proliferation in the modification of the sedimentary tidal environment in Mont-Saint- Michel Bay (The Channel, France). Comptes rendus de l’académie des sciences Série II - Fascicule A - Sciences de la terre et des planètes 327, 583-588.

Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., and Kaiser, M. J. 2006. Indicators of the ecological impact of bottom-trawl disturbance on seabed communities. Ecosystems, 9: 1190. Kostecki C., Rochette S., Girardin R., Blanchard M., Desroy N., Le Pape O. (2011). Reduction of flatfishes habitat as a consequence of the proliferation of an invasive mollusc. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 92 : 154-160.

Loomis, S.H., Van Nieuwenhuyze, W., 1985. Sediment correlates to density of Crepidula fornicata Linnaeus in the Pataguanset river, Connecticut. The Veliger 27, 266-272.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 101

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and PI 2.4.1 function, considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. Le Fur, 2010. Référentiel pour la gestion dans les sites Natura 2000 en mer - Tome 1 Pêche professionnelle. Activités - Interactions - Dispositifs d’encadrement. Report by Agence des Aires Marines Protegees. 152 pp. Available online at: http://www.airesmarines.fr/Documentation/Referentiels-pour-la-gestion-des-sites- Natura-2000-en-mer OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 102

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, that strategy in place, if place for managing the are expected to achieve necessary, that is impact of all MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC fisheries level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level on habitats. of performance or above. Met? Y Y N Justifi As for ETP species, in accordance with EU legislation, an appropriate assessment cation (i.e. impact assessment) must be carried out prior to any project (which may include fisheries not previously planned in these areas) taking place within the SACs designated in Bay of Mont Saint-Michel (Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel,, 2012). The slipper limpet fishery is perceived as a low-impact fishery and should even induce a positive impact by limiting the slipper limpet expansion in the area. The decree in force allows the fishery to take place only in specific delimited areas. Moreover, the fishing area selection is an essential part of the management strategy, by limiting its impact to a small fraction of the bay and not overlapping VME nor minor habitats. In addition, the fishery limits the proliferation of slipper limpet beyond areas currently colonized, and avoids further seabed degradations related to the slipper limpet extent (Loomis & Van Nieuwenhuyze, 1985; Ehrhold et al., 1998) and harms to essential fish habitats (Kostecki et al ., 2011). The team considered that the EC Habitats Directive provides to framework for a partial strategy which is at least expected to achieve the Habitat outcome SG80 level of performance or above. So SG 80 is met .

However, there is not a full strategy in place for managing the impact of this on all habitat types, especially with regard to other fisheries on the area. Moreover, if the strategy of the fishery restricted to this area is appropriate to limit the extent of its influence, the frequent rate of dredging within this restricted fishing area could have harmful consequences, locally (P. Le Mao, pers. comm.). Using a precautionary approach, the team considered SG 100 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi Based on the information available on benthic interactions in dredge fisheries cation (Guyonnet and Grall, 2005), to the restricted fishing area and to the lack of overlap with VME nor minor habitats, there is some objective basis for confidence that impacts of dredging are non neglectable.This may be especially true when the dredging activity becomes frequent within the fishing area, but concentrated on small specific areas by law. The partial strategy is therefore effective based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. The team concluded that SG80 is met.

However, there is no testing which supports high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work. So the team considered SG 100 is not met.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 103

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some There is clear post quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justifi As mentioned previously in PI 2.4.2 a. and b., the restricted fished area and the lack cation of overlap with VME nor minor habitats provide some objective basis for confidence that the strategy strongly achieves limitation of impacts of dredging. There is some quantitative evidence that the measures/partial strategy is being implemented successfully. The team considered SG 80 is met. SG 100 is not met, because it’s not clear that the partial strategy is achieving all its objectives in terms of habitat risk management , knowing there is not a full strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishing activity on all habitat types. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’ /non -MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is qualitative There is some There is clear post evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies management with both its management with both its management requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. fisheries, where relevant. Met? Y Y Y Justifi As mentioned previously in PI 2.4.2 a. and b., there is no overlap of the fishing cation areas with VME nor minor habitats, so the management of the fishery does not form any protection measures afforded to VMEs. During the site visit and the RBF meeting, the French Marine Protected Areas Agency (MPAA) and the client group have discussed about the way to collaborate for exchanging all information in real- time about the fleet compliance regarding potential new management requirements or protection measures which will implement in the fishing area. The team concluded that SG 100 is met .

Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012. Evaluation d’incidences Natura 2000. Concessions “Crépidules” en Baie du Mont Saint-Michel (35). Février 2012. 27 pp

Le Fur, 2010. Référentiel pour la gestion dans les sites Natura 2000 en mer - Tome 1 Pêche professionnelle. Activités - Interactions - Dispositifs d’encadrement. Report References by Agence des Aires Marines Protegees. 152 pp. Available online at: http://www.airesmarines.fr/Documentation/Referentiels-pour-la-gestion-des-sites- Natura-2000-en-mer

Guyonnet, B. and Grall, J., 2005: Etude bibliographique des impacts des dragues sur les fonds marins . Rapport contractuel UBO-LEMAR / IFREMER LORIENT.71 pp OVERA LL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 104

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all post of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood . main habitats in the UoA their range, with particular area are known at a level attention to the of detail relevant to the occurrence of vulnerable scale and intensity of the habitats. UoA.

Met? Y Y Y Justifi As shown in the main report, the distribution of all habitat types (see part 3.4.4 and cation Figure 19 of the report), including vulnerable habitats such as Zostera fields, sand mason ( Lanice conchilega ) banks and Sabellaria reefs is well known throughout Cancale Bay (more widely in Bay of Mont Saint-Michel). On this basis, the team considered SG100 is met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of post broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats nature of the main the main impacts of the have been quantified fully. impacts of gear use on UoA on the main habitats, the main habitats, and there is reliable including spatial overlap information on the spatial of habitat with fishing extent of interaction and gear. on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Met? Y Y N Justifi The distribution of vulnerable habitats and the spatial and temporal footprint cation (especially physical, chemical and biological effects) of the fishery are known, and are sufficient for detecting any overlap (Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012 ; Le Fur, 2010). Further information are based on scientific literature investigating benthic interactions in dredge fisheries (Guyonnet and Grall, 2005). For more details, please refer to part 3.4.4 of the report. On this basis, the team concluded that information are adequate and sufficient to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there are reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. SG 80 is met. Nevertheless, no research has been done assessing benthic interactions in the slipper limpet fishery specifically, so the physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have not been quantified fully. Considering that point, the team concluded that SG100 is not met . c Monitoring Guide Adequate information Changes in habitat post continues to be collected distributions over time are to detect any increase in measured. risk to the main habitats. Met? Y N Justifi Within the framework set by the EC Habitats Directive, habitat distributions are cation monitored over time and are fed into EUNIS (European Nature Information System). This information is sufficient for any increase in risk to vulnerable habitats to be detected. As such, the team considered that sufficient data and adequate information continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat and

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 105

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. changes in some habitats distributions over time are measure. Overall, the team considered SG 80 is met . But there has been no survey about slipper limpet distribution since 2003, and the progress of this species can modified habitats covered, so changes in habitat distributions around slipper limpet stock over time are not specifically measured. The team concluded that SG 100 is not met .

Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012. Evaluation d’incidences Natura 2000. Concessions “Crépidules” en Baie du Mont Saint-Michel (35). Février 2012. 27 pp

Le Fur, 2010. Référentiel pour la gestion dans les sites Natura 2000 en mer - Tome 1 Pêche professionnelle. Activités - Interactions - Dispositifs d’encadrement. Report by Agence des Aires Marines Protegees. 152 pp. Available online at: http://www.airesmarines.fr/Documentation/Referentiels-pour-la-gestion-des-sites- References Natura-2000-en-mer Guyonnet, B. and Grall, J., 2005: Etude bibliographique des impacts des dragues sur les fonds marins . Rapport contractuel UBO-LEMAR / IFREMER LORIENT. 71 pp Kostecki C., Rochette S., Girardin R., Blanchard M., Desroy N., Le Pape O. (2011). Reduction of flatfishes habitat as a consequence of the proliferation of an invasive mollusc. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 92 : 154-160. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 106

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the key the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem elements underlying to disrupt the key structure and function to a ecosystem structure and elements underlying point where there would function to a point where ecosystem structure and be a serious or there would be a serious function to a point where irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Blanchard (2005, 2006, 2009) has well described the role of slipper limpet in the cation Bay of Mont Saint-Michel ecosystem. Moreover, trophic level and trophic role of slipper limpet is well understood in this ecosystem (Arbach Leloup et al., 2008; Cugier et al ., 2010), and especially its huge sampling of primary production removed from the local indigenous trophic web... The fishery under assessment is therefore highly unlikely to cause irreversible ecosystem impacts. Indeed, knowing the aspects of the species’ biology (high reproductive speed, gregarious nature) and the volume of slipper limpets fished every year, the stock is potentially growing faster than its harvest, even if scientists did not collate recent data to verify it (since 2003). Moreover, limiting the slipper limpet extent would reduce the main impact of slipper limpet on the bay, related to primary production sampling. Benthic samples analyzed as part of the site show no significant difference in the structure of invertebrate populations present on the sea bottom occupied by slipper limpets and those on the areas cleared of slipper limpets (oysters fishing concessions). In both cases, there is a strong heterogeneity of sediments leading to high species richness at small scale (de Montaudouin and Sauriau, 1999). Furthermore, the ecosystem in the Bay of Mont St Michel is also modified by the habitat change linked to the spreading of slipper limpet and its consequences on the sea bottom (Ehrhold et al., 1998). These changes have harmful consequences on the function of the bay as an essential flatfish nursery area (Kostecki et al ., 2011). The fishery is located on a place where it could limit this extent and thus these harmful consequences.

Overall, the team concluded that there is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying the ecosystem structure and functions to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm, so SG 100 is met.

Arbach Leloup F., Desroy N., Le Mao P., Pauly D., Le Pape O (2008) Interactions between a natural food web, shellfish farming and exotic species: the case of the Bay of Mont Saint Michel (France ) Estuarine, coastal and shelf science . 76(1) : 111- 120.

Blanchard, M., 2005. Dynamique de la population de crépidule (Crepidula fornicata) en Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, Rapport Ifremer Brest, 33 pp. References Blanchard, M., 2006. Cartographie et évaluation du stock de crépidules en baie du Mont Saint-Michel, en 2004, Rapport Ifremer Brest, 34 pp.

Blanchard, M., 2009. Recent expansion of the slipper-limpet population ( Crepidula fornicata ) in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel (Western Channel, France). Aquatic Living Resources 22, 11-19.

Cugier P, Struski C, Blanchard M, Mazurié J, Pouvreau S, Olivier F, Trigui JR,

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 107

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. Thiébaut E. 2010. Assessing the role of benthic filter-feeders on phytoplanktonic production in a shellfish farming site: Mont Saint Michel Bay, France. Journal of Marine Systems ;82:21-34.

De Montaudouin, X., Sauriau, P.G., 1999. The proliferating Gastropoda Crepidula fornicata may stimulate macrozoobenthic diversity. Journal of the Marine Biological Association , United Kingdom 79, 1069-1077

Ehrhold, A., Blanchard, M., Auffret, J.P., Garlan, T., 1998. The role of Crepidula proliferation in the modification of the sedimentary tidal environment in Mont-Saint- Michel Bay (The Channel, France). Comptes rendus de l’académie des sciences Série II - Fascicule A - Sciences de la terre et des planètes 327, 583-588.

Kostecki C., Rochette S., Girardin R., Blanchard M., Desroy N., Le Pape O., 2011. Reduction of flatfishes habitat as a consequence of the proliferation of an invasive mollusc. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 92: 154-160.

OVERALL PER FORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 108

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA 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 Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a par tial There is a strategy that post place, if necessary which strategy in place, if consists of a plan, in take into account the necessary, which takes place which contains potential impacts of the into account available measures to address all fishery on key elements of information and is main impacts of the the ecosystem. expected to restrain UoA on the ecosystem, impacts of the UoA on and at least some of the ecosystem so as to these measures are in achieve the Ecosystem place. Outcome 80 level of performance.

Met? Y Y Y Justifi The management measures framing the slipper limpet fishery are listed under cation Principle 1 (see part 3.3 and the evaluation table for specific rationals). Moreover, under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (2008/56/CE) each member state should achieve ‘good ecological status’ by 2020 and set up an action plan to reach this objective. Four sub-regions have been defined within French waters for the implementation of the MSFD, including the sub-region of the Channel/North Sea, where is the slipper limpet fishing area. The action plan for the sub-region includes an initial diagnostics and data gap analysis of the status of the marine environment, a definition of what ‘good ecological status’ is within the context of the sub-region, environmental objectives and management measures to reach that status (established by 2015 and implemented in 2016). The action plan have also a monitoring programme to see how the objectives are being reached. The initial diagnostic for the Channel/North Sea sub-region is available via this link: http://webissimo.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Evaluation_initiale_Manch e_-_mer_du_Nord_cle72511e.pdf .

The initial diagnostic report provides in-depth analysis on the ecological characteristics and status of the marine environment within the sub-region and the anthropogenic effects impacting (positive or negative) on the marine environment. Following the issuing of this report a number of objectives were identified in 2012. More specific objectives has been identified in 2015. Although the activities under the MSFD are work in progress, the management measures put in place for the slipper limpet fishery ensure that the fishery does not pose a risk to the slipper limpet stock and therefore to the wider ecosystem (see rationals put in PI 2.5.1 (a)). The team therefore felt that at least a partial strategy is in place and that SG80 is met. As precised in PI 2.5.1 (a) and in PI 2.4.2(a), in-depth information about the role of slipper limpet in Bay of Mont Saint-Michel ecosystem are well-know (key role in the Bay, trophic and environnemental impacts of slipper limpet concentration, etc.). Indeed ). The slipper limpet fishery is perceived as a low-impact fishery and should even induce a positive impact by limiting the slipper limpet expansion in the area and the fishery limits the proliferation of slipper limpet beyond areas currently colonized, and avoids further seabed degradations related to the slipper limpet extent (Loomis & Van Nieuwenhuyze, 1985; Ehrhold et al., 1998) and harms to essential fish habitats (Kostecki et al ., 2011).

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 109

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Thereby, it can be said that there is a full strategy in place. For this reason, the team concludes that SG100 is met . b Management strategy evaluation Gui de The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or fisheries/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved involved Met? Y Y Y Justifi As mentioned in 2.5.2.a, management measures (in agreement with the local cation Natura 2000 plan) put in place by the Decree and CRC for the slipper limpet fishery have thus tried to limit the spreading of slipper limpet on the progressing front, close to oyster fishing areas. There are further no issues in this fishery with primary and secondary species, benthic habitats or ETP species. Overall, there is some objective evidence, that the partial strategy is appropriate for the fishery to avoid any risk of serious harms to the ecosystem, the team considered SG80 is reached. Moreover, according to the scientific references about tests which supports high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work, the team concluded that SG 100 is also reached. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully . and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justifi The strategy on place is just beginning to be implemented, but compliance with the cation management measures put in place by the decree is verified by the DDTM/DML. The absence of non-compliance records (see Section 3.5.2), constitutes evidence that the measures comprising the partial strategy are being implemented successfully. The team considered SG80 is met . However, there is no clear evidence at this early time of exploitation, that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully. The team concluded that SG 100 is not met. d Measures for introducted species (modification of the assessment tree) Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that post place in the fishery to strategy in place in the consists of a plan, in prevent fishery to prevent place in the further ecosystem further ecosystem fishery to prevent further impacts that may have impacts that may have ecosystem impacts that occurred as a occurred as a may result of the introduction result of the introduction have occurred as a result of the species . of the species. of the introduction of the species . Met? Y Y Justifi Slipper Limpet species is a introduced species, which induces several effects on cation ecosystem:

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 110

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. - silting the surrounding environment by producing faeces and pseudo- faeces (Loomis & Van Nieuwenhuyze, 1985; Ehrhold et al., 1998), leading to a modification of benthic assemblages. This increases the diversity of species present in low colonization rate medium (de Montaudouin and Sautriau, 1999 ), but since the colonization rate reaches a threshold, the impoverishment of the medium becomes inexorable because Crepidula practically becomes the only remaining species on the sea bottom; - the growth of slipper limpet colonies induces a spatial extension of the population as spots are merging completely up to cover the surface of the sediment and, hence, to constitute an uniform mat (Erhold et al., 1998). This process excludes species restricted to only one type of sediment for their recruitment, including invertebrates but also juvenile flatfish using shallow soft bottom areas as nursery grounds (Kostecki et al., 2011) - Phoresis: Slipper Limpet attaches priority to the shell of a congener, but also any flat surface and enough big . It can be fixed on the shell and large bivalves (scallops, Pacific and flat oysters, clams ...) as well. - trophic competition: as a gastropod screener, Slipper limpets consume a big share of phytoplankton to the detriment of other filtering organisms within the bay (Arbach Leloup et al., 2008; Cugier et al., 2010).

As described in 2.5.2 (a), the main goal of the Decree in force, in agreement with the local Natura 2000 plan, is to limit the spreading of slipper limpet. For that, there several measures in place to prevent ecosystem impacts, stated by the decree : - Delimited fishing areas in Cancale Bay, according to where slipper limpet expansion is active (Art. 2) - Only slipper limpets can be landed by the fishery (no other retained species) and no slipper limpet can be discarded (Art. 4) These two articles are implemented to miminize any risk of slipper limpet spread in the part of the ecosystem ( SG 60 is met ). Besides the legal framework, the fishery have an internal strategy Exploited areas are located in the north of the flat oyster fishing concessions, where oyster farmers tend to discharge the slipper limpets after cleaning their parks, and in the eastern part of the moving front (cf. Figure 1 ). The slipper limpets fishing areas are made of highly colonized areas but also less dense areas (the progressing front), where they are caught as an attempt to fight against the silting of the sea bottom generated by slipper limpets.

Overall, the team considered there is a strategy in place in the fishery to prevent further ecosystem impacts that may have occurred as a result of the slipper limpet introduction. SG 100 is met .

MSFD: DIRM Atlantique, 2014. Programme de mesures, Channel-North Sea sub- region.http://webissimo.developpement- durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Evaluation_initiale_Manche_- _mer_du_Nord_cle72511e.pdf.

Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012. Evaluation d’incidences Natura 2000. References Concessions “Crépidules” en Baie du Mont Saint-Michel (35). Février 2012. 27 pp

Arbach Leloup F., Desroy N., Le Mao P., Pauly D., Le Pape O (2008) Interactions between a natural food web, shellfish farming and exotic species: the case of the Bay of Mont Saint Michel (France) Estuarine, coastal and shelf scienc e. 76(1) : 111- 120.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 111

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Cugier P, Struski C, Blanchard M, Mazurié J, Pouvreau S, Olivier F, Trigui JR, Thiébaut E. Assessing the role of benthic filter-feeders on phytoplanktonic production in a shellfish farming site: Mont Saint Michel Bay, France. Journal of Marine Systems 2010;82:21-34.

Ehrhold, A., Blanchard, M., Auffret, J.P., Garlan, T., 1998. The role of Crepidula proliferation in the modification of the sedimentary tidal environment in Mont-Saint-Michel Bay (The Channel, France). Comptes rendus de l’académie des sciences Série II - Fascicule A - Sciences de la terre et des planètes 327, 583-588.

Kostecki C., Rochette S., Girardin R., Blanchard M., Desroy N., Le Pape O. (2011). Reduction of flatfishes habitat as a consequence of the proliferation of an invasive mollusc. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 92 : 154-160.

Loomis, S.H., Van Nieuwenhuyze, W., 1985. Sediment correlates to density of Crepidula fornicata Linnaeus in the Pataguanset river, Connecticut. The Veliger 27, 266-272.

de Montaudouin, X., Sauriau, P.G., 1999. The proliferating Gastropoda Crepidula fornicata may stimulate macrozoobenthic diversity. Journal of the Marine Biological Association , United Kingdom 79, 1069-1077. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 112

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem . Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post identify the key elements broadly understand the of the ecosystem. key elements of the ecosystem.

. Met? Y Y Justifi Information on key elements of the ecosystem is still collating under the Marine Strategy cation Framework Directive -MSFD- (see PI 2.5.2, scoring issue a), the EC Habitats and Birds Directives as well as by the fishery operators (ALD and Cap à l’Ouest Companies) as part of the fishery’s monitoring internal procedure. Moreover, the AAMP and the Association of “Baie du Mont Saint-Michel continues to gather information and data about the Bay of Mont Saint- Michel ecosystem. Futhermore, several scientific research and studies were carried out under the IPRAC project (Impacts of environmental factors and shellfish farming on the ecosystem of the bay of Mont Saint-Michel and shellfish production, 2008-2010), which involved scientists from 3 different scientific bodies (IFREMER, MNHN-CRESCO, UBO). IPRAC project main objective was to provide elements of qualitative and quantitative assessment of the evolution of the trophic resource in the Bay of the Mount St Michel and populations that depend on it, under different assumptions of changing environmental and anthropogenic forcings. The team considered that information is thus adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. SG80 is met. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guide Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions between the UoA post on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem and these ecosystem elements can elements can be inferred elements can be inferred be inferred from existing from existing information, from existing information, information, and have been but have not been and some have been investigated in detail . investigated in detail. investigated in detail . Met? Y Y Y Justifi Taking into account 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 justifications and the large amounts of scientific research cation and related references from scientific litterature, and especially the IPRAC project (Cugier et al ., 2010) which was devoted to analyze ecosystem pressures related to slipper limpet and effects of their removing, the main impacts of slipper limpet on the biodiversity have been investigated in details. SG 100 is met . c Understanding of component functions Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on P1 post components (i.e., P1 target species, primary, secondary target species, primary, and ETP species and Habitats are secondary and ETP identified and the main functions of species and Habitats) in these components in the the ecosystem are ecosystem are understood . known . Met? Y Y Justifi As detailed in the sections relating to P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species cation and Habitats, the impacts of the fishery on the corresponding ecosystem components are known and are understood. Both SG80 and SG100 are therefore met. d Information relevance Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is available post available on the impacts on the impacts of the UoA on the of the UoA on these components and elements to allow

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 113

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem . components to allow the main consequences for the some of the main ecosystem to be inferred. consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y Y Justifi As per scoring issue c, adequate information are available on the impacts of the UoA on the cation components and elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem components to be inferred. As such SG80 is met. Considering the role of the slipper limpet in the ecosystem and therefore its interactions/effects/impacts with all ecosystem elements has been investigated, SG100 is met. e Monitoring Guide Adequate data continue Information is adequate to support post to be collected to detect the development of strategies to any increase in risk level. manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y N Justifi Information on key elements of the ecosystem continue to be collected under the Marine cation Strategy Framework Directive (see PI 2.5.2, scoring issue a), the EC Habitats (e.g. EUNIS) and Birds Directives as well as by the client group ALD-“Cap à l’Ouest” as part of this fishery’s monitoring programme. SG 80 is met. Under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), information have been collected and analyzed for the elaboration of an action plan to achieve a ‘good ecological status’ of the French North Sea/Channel sub-region by 2020. This information are already available in the relevant report for the sub-region: http://webissimo.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Evaluation_initiale_Manche_- _mer_du_Nord_cle72511e.pdf. The report provides in-depth analysis on the ecological characteristics and status of the marine environment within the sub-region and the anthropogenic influences acting on this environment. Based on this report, environmental objectives and management measures are being identified which will ultimately permit the achievement of a ‘good ecological status’ by 2020.

Moreover, the main impacts of slipper limpet on the ecosystem are understood. However, the lack of recent information on the stock status prevent SG 100 from being reached. SG 80 is met.

SG 100 cannot be met because there are not enough recent and adequate information to support the development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. f Informa tion of the introduced species (modification of the default assessment tree) Guide Some data are being The main impacts of the The main impacts of introduced post collected to understand introduced species on species on the biodiversity and prevent the are understood . further progression of the biodiversity are known. impact of the introduced species on biodiversity Met? Y Y Y Justifi Considering 2.5.1 (a) and 2.5.2 justifications and the large amounts of scientific research and cation related references from scientific litterature, the main impacts of slipper limpet on the ecosystem structure and function are understood. SG 100 is met. Cugier P, Struski C, Blanchard M, Mazurié J, Pouvreau S, Olivier F, Trigui JR, Thiébaut E. 2010. Assessing the role of benthic filter-feeders on phytoplanktonic production in a shellfish farming site: Mont Saint Michel Bay, France. Journal of Marine Systems 2010;82:21-34. References

cugier, P. Frangoudes, K. Blanchard, M. Mongruel, R. Perez-Agundez, J. A. Le Mao, P. Robin, T. Fontenelle, G. Mazurie, J. Cayocca, F. Pouvreau, S. Olivier, f., 2010. Impact des

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 114

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem . facteurs environnementaux et des pratiques conchylicoles sur la baie du Mont Saint-Michel et la production conchylicole. Etude de scenarii par modélisation. Programme Liteau 3. Rapport Final

MSFD: DIRM Atlantique, 2014. Programme de mesures, Channel-North Sea sub- region.http://webissimo.developpement- durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Evaluation_initiale_Manche_-_mer_du_Nord_cle72511e.pdf.

Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012. Evaluation d’incidences Natura 2000. Concessions “Crépidules” en Baie du Mont Saint-Michel (35). Février 2012. 27 pp

Le Fur, 2010. Référentiel pour la gestion dans les sites Natura 2000 en mer - Tome 1 Pêche professionnelle. Activités - Interactions - Dispositifs d’encadrement. Report by Agence des Aires Marines Protegees. 152 pp. Available online at: http://www.airesmarines.fr/Documentation/Referentiels-pour-la-gestion-des-sites-Natura- 2000-en-mer OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 115

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1 • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management Guide There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective post national legal system and national legal system and national legal system and a framework for organised and effective binding procedures cooperation with other cooperation with other governing cooperation parties, where necessary, parties, where necessary, with other parties which to deliver management to deliver management delivers management outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The French system of national (Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de l’Aquaculture) cation and local administrations at regional and departemental scales (DIRM-NAMO, DDTM-DML35) in addition to professional organizations (French National Committee on fisheries and marine farms CNPMEM and Regional Committee on Brittany's fisheries and marine farms CRPMEM ) are consistent with laws and standards that aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. This framework facilitates their cooperation with all parties (SG60 is met ) and is organized and effective ( SG80 is met ).

In relation to the fishery under assessment, slipper limpet was not recognized as an usual species to be fished (invasive status threat ening cultivated shellfish beds), the CRC took the lead to initiate a new fishery. However, the fishery is part of an effective national legal system through an experimental fishing authorization decree first issued on June 14, 2013 (Arrêté n°2013-6540). The DDTM 35 is in charge of management of the slipper limpet fishery. Management measures consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 are proposed in this experimental fishing authorization decree which was adopted upon agreement of the government representative (Préfet de Région de Bretagne). The legal framework includes several management measures and binding procedures established with all the parties, according to CRC and CRPMEM Brittany requests and IFREMER scientists advice:

- Experimental fishing for slipper limpet has been authorized in order to limit its expansion in Bay of Mont Saint-Michel and restore the seabed quality (Art 1). - Fishing areas in Bay of Mont Saint-Michel are strictly delimited (Art. 2) - Until now, only one fishing boat (“PAPY”) is operating this fishery for CRC (Art.3). This fishing boat will be operated by a private company (“Cap à l’Ouest”) after September 2015 (new decree Sept. 2015). - Only slipper limpets can be landed by the fishery. No other species will be retained and no slipper limpet can be discarded (Art. 4) - For each catch, the fishing company must record their dates, hours and areas of the fishing operation, the catch quantities and an estimation of bycatch volume (Art 5) - By the end of each year, fishery members have to produce an annual operating balance report on a specific form prepared by DIRM/NAMO. This report should include the catch for the year, their utilization, the exploitation costs and benefits, To renew their authorization, the fishers should

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 116

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1 • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. communicate the location and planned capture for the next year as well as the number of fishing boats that could participate to the fishery. (Art 6). - All operations should be made without inducing any disturbances in current uses within the bay (Art. 7).

The authorities (DDTM 35 DIRM/NAMO) have a leading role in the development of this fishing sector and are in charge of monitoring and enforcement. The legal situation has changed in September 2015: The CRC proposed to a private company (“Cap à l’Ouest” based in Le Vivier / Mer) to take over the fitting-out of the fishing boat “PAPY” for exploiting the slipper limpet through a leasing contract. This change induced a modification of the decree for this experimental fishing authorization decree (Arrêté n°2015-11700 issued on September 4, 2015) The duration of the experimental fishing authorization has been reduced, not extending later than December 31, 2016 instead of December 31, 2018.

Overall, there is an effective national legal system and binding procedures governing cooperation with other parties which delivers management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The team concluded that SG 100 is met. b Resolution of disputes Guide The management system The management system The management system post incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for by law to a transparent by law to a transparent the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within the resolution of legal resolution of legal system. disputes which is disputes that is considered to be effective appropriate to the context in dealing with most of the fishery and has issues and that is been tested and proven to appropriate to the context be effective. of the UoA. Met? Y Y N Justifi There are resolution mechanisms within the French management system at local cation level involving CRC, CDPMEM 35 and the DIRM-DDTM/DML. These mechanisms deal with fishing areas, seasons, authorized vessels, targeted/non targeted species and landing practices. In fact, there is a co-management regime in place between CRC and CDPMEM to limit users’ conflicts within the fishing area. Indeed, there is an exchange of activity schedules among all fishers of the bay, which avoids simultaneous fishing in the same areas. Moreover, the local committee of fisheries has set up a insurance system with the Maritime Affairs among all fishers to cover expenses for damage caused by unidentified persons. French administrative decisions can also be challenged in Administrative Court (at Rennes for Brittany); so, procedures are in place to ensure transparent deliberations and legality checks. The same applies to decisions of the CRC that are discussed in focus groups and mostly adopted by consensus. On this basis, the management system is well subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the UoA. The team considered SG80 is met. Until now no legal dispute has been tested but an operational system to solve such

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 117

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1 • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. disputes has been existing within the bay of Mont St Michel among f ishers and the Maritime Administration anyway. Hence, the resolution of legal disputes has not been tested yet and proven to be effective for this fishery. However, there is a framework already in place to prevent various fishing boats from conflicting within the bay. Given this legal (Maritime Administration) and self-commitment by the fishers background, the team concluded that SG 100 is not met yet. c Respect for rights Guide The management system The management system The management system post has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly or established by established by custom of explicitly or established by custom of people people dependent on custom of people dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a manner consistent with consistent with the manner consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justifi In France, the State retains ownership of national quotas. However, in practice, for cation all stages and all actors with public delegated powers (DDTM/DIRM for licenses and CRC for vessel quotas) there are procedures that bind them to ‘formally commit’ to the customary rights of fishers. According to all parties met during the on-site visit, there is no problem between commercial and recreational fishers, or “pêcheurs à pied” for this fishery.

Overall, the team concluded that the management system displays a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights 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. SG100 is met . Code rural de la pêche maritime Livre IX: pêche maritime et aquaculture marine.

Arrêté n° 2013-6540 Autorisation de prélèvement expérimental des crépidules en References Baie du Mont St Michel.

Arrêté n° 2015-11700 Modification Arrêté n° 2013-6540. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 118

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities 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 Roles and responsibilities Guide Organizations and Organizations and Organizations and post individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process management process management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and well explicitly defined and well understood for key areas understood for all areas of of responsibility and responsibility and interaction. interaction. Met? Y Y N Justifi The fishery takes place within the regulatory framework governing the shellfish cation farming activities. The skills of the various stakeholders of the management framework are clearly defined in the regulatory text in force, especially: - the issuance and amendment of the shellfish beds tenures by the Administration (Préfet d’Ille et Vilaine) - the definition of general rules for access to the authorized fisheries areas and related technical measures (CRC and CRPMEM) All functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood within the French system. This applies to most areas of activity, but not all, as set out in detail in the main report (see part 3.5). So, the team considered SG 80 is met.

However, the process for relevant data collecting for small-scale fisheries remains complex and confusing. Moreover, this fishery remains within an experimental fishery case until December 2016. Nevertheless, by this date, the situation is expected to change to become a full fishery operation, which will require a PME and a possible fishing license. Overall, using a precautionary approach, the team concluded that functions, roles and responsibilities are not enough explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. So, SG100 is not met. b Consultation processes Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including information, including including local knowledge, local knowledge. The local knowledge. The to inform the management system management system management system. demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Until September 2015, the slipper limpet fishery was currently managed by the CRC cation North-Brittany. Membership of the CRC is compulsory for all involved parties in slipper limpet commercial fishing in the bay, from catching to processing. One of the

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 119

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 roles of the CRC is to participate in the drafting of fisheries management regulations. All the functions, roles and responsibilities of its members are clearly defined in the 2011 decree (Décret n° 2011-1701 du 30 novembre 2011 ) and repealed by the 2014 decree ( décret n°2014-1608 du 26 décembre 2014 ). They are well understood in all areas. The whole management system within the bay between CRC/CRPMEM/DDTM includes consultation processes to obtain relevant information from the main affected parties, including local knowledge, to inform the management system. Even if the operator recently changed, the CRC stated that it will follow the results of the exploitation and continue to be a part of the fishery system management. Moreover, non-fisheries stakeholders (e.g. environmental NGOs like several Bay of Mont Saint-Michel associations) have regularly expressed their interests for this fishery, to contain harmful consequences of the slipper limpet invasion, and they take part into the consultation process as far as possible. We can conclude that the management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained to met SG80 .

Annual report of meetings were available but there were not released because not claimed by Authorities, given the tiny scale of this fishery. However, these reports were commonly used to adapt the management system depending on information provided by commercial fishers themselves, including local knowledge and debates on how information is shared or not with others stakeholders. This interacting communication will be improved in the next year as the fishery status should evolve towards a conventional system under the supervision of fishing authorities (CRPMEM Brittany), with implementation of a “Slipper Limpet Committee” inside the CRPMEM. Since the visit on site (September), the situation has been evolved to encourage partnership among parties. Several meetings have been already organized: - assessements updating on operations to confirm the production targets for coming months (Sept. 22, Oct. 22) with Ifremer and CRPMEM; - transition of the planned management system between 2016 and 2017. Two meetings with President of CRPMEM held in Rennes on 10/19/15 and 02/03/16. Further meetings with the presidents of CRPMEM, CDPMEM 35,22 and 29 are scheduled for 03/15/16; - The authorities have also been requested. Mail exchanges took place with the DDTM, and a meeting is scheduled on Feb. 18, 2016, with the DIRM to discuss on issue of floating SMEs in the French fishing and the conditions for access to this type of permit.

On this basis, the team considered that the management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used. SG 100 is met. c Participation Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity for provides opportunity and all interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Y N

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 120

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 Justifi The CRC/ CRPMEM/DDTM have specific provisions for good governance including cation consultation and active participation. The management system provides opportunities for regular consultation and decision making with interested and affected parties. Please, refer to part 3.5.2 for more details about the consultation process included into the management system. But, as mentioned in PI 3.1.2 (a), the consultation process, especially the communication between managers of the fishery (CRC/DDTM) and other stakeholders, have been improved in order to clearly encourage all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitate the effective engagement of interested parties. Overall, the team concluded that further to the description above, SG 80 is met but not SG 100 because the CRC/ CRPMEM/DDTM should better encourage for all interested and affected such as local environmental NGOs. Décret n° 2011-1701 du 30 novembre 2011 fixant les modalités d'organisation et de fonctionnement de l'organisation interprofessionnelle de la conchyliculture References Décret n° 2014-1608 du 26 décembre 2014 relatif à la codification de la partie réglementaire du livre IX du code rural et de la pêche maritime OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 121

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives The management policy has cl ear long -term objectives to guide decision - PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives post guide decision-making, that guide decision- that guide decision- consistent with the MSC making, consistent with making, consistent with fisheries standard and the MSC fisheries standard MSC fisheries standard precautionary approach, and the precautionary and the precautionary are implicit within approach are explicit approach, are explicit management policy. within management within and required by policy. management policy. Met? Y Y Partial Justifi Management policy at a French framework scale, by the two decrees in force cation (Decree n° 2015-11700 modifying the previous Decree n° 2013-6540), request all information of catch (annual report) each year to have a precautionary approach and take measure if for instance, there is evidence in the catch data (downward trend) that stock is potentially declining. The DPMA decided that, by 2017, this slipper limpet fishery will have to evolve towards a conventional system under the supervision of fishing authorities (and no longer under shellfish farming authorities, CRC). This change paves the way for a real commercial fishing venture with the obligation for the “PAPY” (24m long & 240 kw) (and may be other interested fishing boats) to get a PME and comply with all European & French obligations for such a fishing boat (electronic logbook, VMS, etc.)

Given that only one fishing boat constitutes the current fishery for an expanding species and that the UoA scale is tiny when we consider the huge geographical extension of this species there is a very little chance to reduce the stock. Moreover, all stakeholders agreed for setting rules to adapt the harvest on a small part of the UoA and looking at what could be the outcomes if the fishery was supposed to operate beyond the limit of the UoA. This fishery is a very rare example of a beginning fishery on a virgin stock to produce both a new market product and an innovative management approach; which could be applied to a higher spatial level based on the results of this fishery. We can consider that this management meets the long term objectives at higher scale.

In addition, the slipper limpet fishery can be considered as a “pilot” fishery, according to its experimental status and its specific legal framework (one decree in force). As said previously, the long terme objective of both fishing managers (ALD and Cap à l’Ouest companies) and French fishing authorities (DPMA, DDTM, DIRM NAMO) is clearly explicit to move forward an official “fishery” status in 2017, but until this change the slipper limpet exploitation stays an experimental fishery. Thereby, this precautionary approach are explicit within management policy (SG 80 is met for P1).

The French Ministry website refers to the ‘transition écologique’ (ecological transition), which includes among its objectives the preservation and restoration of ecosystems. In addition, the Natura 2000 framework (under the Habitats and Birds Directives) aims to protect ETP species and habitats through specific management plans that include fishing and shellfish farming activities (see parts 3.4.3 and 3.4.4). Moreover, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) sets out the objectives for “ Channel-North Sea" subregion to reach Good Environmental Status by 2020 at the latest. These objectives include an explicit precautionary approach, according to

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 122

The management policy has cl ear long -term objectives to guide decision - PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. their definition :

- Protecting, preserving and preventing the deterioration of marine ecosystems. - Managing the pressures of human activity (fishing and other services) in the marine environment in a way which is compatible with achieving a sustainable environment. The ecosystems must be able to cope with both environmental and man-made changes, whilst at the same time enabling the sustainable use of the environment for future generations.

At last, locally, both CRC and CRPMEM have long-term objectives to restore the quality of habitats for their living resources by reducing the pressure of the huge biomass of Slipper limpet and promote a commercial valorization of this introduced species. These objectives related to P2 are consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach are explicit within and required by management policy (SG 80 and SG 100 are met for P2 )

Overal the team concluded there are clear long-term objectives that guide decision- making, consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach are explicit within management policy, according to the overarching objectives related to both P1 & P2, so SG 80 is met .

But the fishery has still an experimental status, which is not yet managing under an official fishing status, and therefore is not legally under the objectives of the French fisheries policy (set out in the Code Rural et de la Pêche and in the Code de l’Environnement, in conformity with the CFP and international obligations, to exploit fisheries sustainably), so P1 objectives don’t reach SG100.

Thus, the team considered that a partial score SG 90 is met . Code rural de la pêche maritime Livre IX: pêche maritime et aquaculture marine.

Arrêté n° 2013-6540 Autorisation de prélèvement expérimental des crépidules en Baie du Mont St Michel. References Arrêté n° 2015-11700 Modification Arrêté n° 2013-6540.

MSFD: DIRM Atlantique, 2014. Programme de mesures, Channel-North Sea sub- region. OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN DICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 123

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives The fishery -specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and post broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 consistent with achieving implicit within the fishery- and 2, are explicit within the outcomes expressed specific management the fishery-specific by MSC’s Principles 1 system. management system. and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y N Justifi ALD and CRC have defined explicit objectives which are consistent with achieving cation the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 to achieve SG60 . Since September 2015, a new monitoring of fishing areas and slipper limpets abundance has been set up. The first results should be known by 2016. This monitoring is threefold:

- Biological objectives: awareness of the biomass present within the bay, quantification of by-catch, spatial and temporal evolution, and mapping drag lines. - Economic – technological objectives: improving the meat/shell ratio by decreasing the proportion of empty shells in dredging. - Investment objective: sharing the data collected during the fishery in order to foster a concerted management of slipper limpet among all stakeholders within the bay. However, all data will be transferred to Managing Authorities (DDTM, DIRM, CROSS according to the current decree), scientists (IFREMER) and other interested local actors.

Indeed , for Principle 1 (objectives written by the client, cf. part 3.5.2):

- Collection of fishing data (including fishing zone, GPS points, number of drag lines, total catch, CPUE and yield) will allow to define a meat/shell ratio indicator per unit of effort (weight of meat / drag line). On a 6-month period basis, it will be possible to assess the general state of the slipper limpet population to analyze the trend of this indicator to determine the best fishing sites in terms of quality of the meat, available biomass and bycatch composition. If a sharp decline of this indicator is observed repeatedly, a consultation meeting should be organized among the operators, IFREMER, CRPMEM and CRC to decide how to cope with this issue (changing the fishing effort, zoning or maintaining the current state…). Data and results of such meetings should help to determine a "reference exploitation threshold 'not to exceed to ensure the sustainability of the resource. Hence, we could consider there is some room for initiating an adaptive co-management. - As said previously, the long terme objective of both fishing managers (ALD and Cap à l’Ouest companies) and French fishing authorities (DPMA, DDTM, DIRM NAMO) is clearly explicit to move forward an official “fishery” status in 2017. - Finally, based on the exploitation of this species by 2016 that will provide all parties with the evolution of the biomass and the new management, the client ALD-SLP and Cap à l’ouest company (fishing vessel operator) would like to increased the level of consultation through a “slipper limpet

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 124

The fishery -specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. committee” hold on by the CRPMEM Brittany. Two meetings between ALD- Cap à l’ouest Company and the President of CRPMEM were already held in Rennes on 10/19/15 and 02/03/16 to talk about the transition of the planned fishery management system between 2016 and 2017).

For Principle 2 , cf. part 3.5.2): - In order to improve crew safety, selectivity of catches and knowledge on the biomass (monitoring of fishing zones), ALD-SLP and “Cap à l’Ouest” company would test the effectiveness of a new pumping dredge system. In agreement with the competent authorities (DDTM, DIRM-NAMO), tests were carried out during autumn 2015 to check the technical feasibility and the results of such a new gear. Unfortunately, the equipment in place was not enough powerful to satisfy the objective. Hence, more suitable equipment is been searched to match with the current fishing boat. Furthermore, the test will have to face the increase in harvest volumes in spring 2016 to avoid hindering the smooth running of production.

- A new procedure for monitoring bycatch has been in place on board of the fishing boat since September, 2015. For each dredge haul, the crew records the number of individuals captured, on a form attached to the rotary washer. A notice including an identification key for main Skates/Rays species and other potential ETP species present on the area will be also attached to the washer in order to help fishers for identifying and counting possible ETP species. Once landed, the shipmaster takes a photo of the counting sheet of bycatch. This modified procedure allows to know, as precisely as possible, the composition of catches. This system will give a detailed list of bycatch for the fishery and how to manage fishing activity to reduce bycatch.

The decree that gives the Client the right to harvest the Slipper limpet includes several duties. Among them there is the obligation to inform all stakeholders about the evolution of the exploited biomass and other species currently present within the UoA. Moreover this species is a very spatial and trophic competitive species for all other cultivated and wild shellfish and some finfish too. Hence, the information obtained through this fishery are expected to reach the short and long term objectives for both the stock and the ecosystem within the UoA and beyond.Taking into account the information referred above the team concluded that short and long- term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the actual fishery-specific management system. SG 80 is met .

However, some of the objectives are not fully explicitely defined and measurable within the actual fishery-specific management system, so SG 100 is not met .

References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 125

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes Guide There are some decision- There are established post 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- specific objectives. specific objectives. Met? Y N Justifi Until summer 2015, there were some issues in adjusting fishing operations with the cation “PAPY” between CRC, ALD-SLP and DDTM35. Hence, the catches were not landed on a regular basis to consolidate an appropriate and adaptive decision- making process to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.

Since the visit on site (September), the situation has been evolved to encourage partnership among parties and improve decision-making process in place an achieve the fishery objectives : - Meeting about the assessements updating on operations to confirm the production targets for coming months (Sept. 22, Oct. 22) with Ifremer and the CRPMEM; - Two meetings between ALD-SLP and President of CRPMEM were held in Rennes on 10/19/15 and 02/03/16 to talk about the transition of the planned management system between 2016 and 2017.Further meetings with the presidents of CRPMEM, CDPMEM 35,22 and 29 are scheduled for 03/15/16; - The authorities have also been requested. Mail exchanges took place with the DDTM, and a meeting is scheduled on Feb. 18 with the DIRM to discuss on issue of floating SMEs in the French fishing and the conditions for access to this type of permit.

For decisions relating to P2, there are established processes both at EU level ( Natura2000 and MPA networks, MSFD) and at French level there are established processes for debating and setting local harvest regulations for gear use, protected species etc. On this basis, the team considered there are some decision-making processes in place to achieve the fishery-specific objectives relating to P2, but it is not well established yet for decisions relating to P1. SG 60 is met, but not SG 80. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guide Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making post processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues identified relevant research, monitoring, evaluation in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the adaptive manner and take account of the wider wider implications of account of the wider implications of decisions. decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Y Y N Justifi In August 2015, the decision-making process led to a modification of the decree in

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 126

The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. cation force when CRC announced their choice to withdraw from vessel management. The new ship owner (“Cap à l’Ouest” company) was found immediately thanks to the consultation meeting between stakeholders. Moreover, the decision-making process led to a consultation of the DPMA about fishery status issues. It has been solved since the beginning of September 2015, when the DPMA stated that this slipper limpet fishery will have to evolve towards a conventional system under the supervision of fishing authorities (and no longer under CRC), with a PME and a license, by 2017. At first glance, the team had evidences that the decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.

However, in addition to the current results and operational decisions of the fishery that are regularly given to the Administration, the Regional Fisheries Committee and IFREMER (as advice providers) as required by the 2015 decree, this information will be available to other parties only on demand. This is why the team concluded that only SG 80 is met. c Use of precautionary approach Guide Decision-making post processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justifi Given the almost virgin biomass and the fishing effort negligible, the process does cation not affect the viability of the stock and monitoring of the operation is appropriate to match a precautionary approach. So any annormal change in the stock status can be detected, which is an essential component of an adaptive approach. In addition, the precautionary approach is also reflected in the limiting to a single vessel and limiting spatially. SG 80 is met because the precautionary approach can be evidenced in available and updated information. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all post fishery’s performance and fishery’s performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on the request to stakeholders. explanations are provided fishery’s performance and for any actions or lack of management actions and action associated with describes how the findings and relevant management system recommendations responded to findings and emerging from research, relevant monitoring, evaluation recommendations and review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y N Justifi Some information on the fishery’s performance are presented at least once cation annually by the CRC North Brittany and discussed during a common meeting. Although the CRC Committee minutes are not widely distributed, they are available to all those who express an interest. SG 60 is met . Catch and fisheries operations details were regularly sent to CRC by ALD-SLP but the CRC never conveyed them to DIRM-NAMO. However, DIRM or DDTM35 never

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 127

The fishery -specific management system includes effective decision -making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. asked for them either. Although written reports were not largely distributed, all main actors know what is going on. They have information on the fishery’s performance and management actions, SG 80 is me t. Annual reports from CRC are not available. So far, there was no formal report which provided explanations for any actions or lack of action associated with findings, or relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Overall, the team concluded that SG 100 is not met. e Approach to disputes Guide Although the The management system The management system post management authority or or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively fishery may be subject to comply in a timely fashion to avoid legal disputes or continuing court with judicial decisions rapidly implements challenges, it is not arising from any legal judicial decisions arising indicating a disrespect or challenges. from legal challenges. defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are resolution mechanisms within the French management system at local cation level involving CRC, CDPMEM 35 and the DIRM-DDTM/DML. These mechanisms deal with fishing areas, seasons, authorized vessels, targeted/non targeted species and landing practices. In fact, there is a co-management regime in place between CRC and CDPMEM to limit users’ conflicts within the fishing area. Indeed, there is an exchange of activity schedules among all fishers of the bay, which avoids simultaneous fishing in the same areas. Moreover, the local committee of fisheries has set up a insurance system with the Maritime Affairs among all fishers to cover expenses for damage caused by unidentified persons.

According to the CDPMEM, CRC and DDTM, there is no disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary (SG 60 is met) and comply in a timely fashion with judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges (SG 80 is met). As mentioned in PI 3.1.1 b, the fishery managers (CRC) act proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges, thanks to a good communication and mutual understanding between CDPMEM 35 and CRC. SG 100 is met . References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 128

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are been implemented in the surveillance system has implemented in the fishery and has been implemented in the fishery and there is a demonstrated an ability to fishery and has reasonable expectation enforce relevant demonstrated a that they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to strategies and/or rules. enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y N Justifi The French Monitoring Control & Surveillance system involves a number of cation agencies and mechanisms at sea and onshore.The systems put in place by the CRC and the DDTM-DML35 together are capable to monitor and control this fishery. In a context surveillance of co-management where fishers propose management measures and rules, the system in place has demonstrated its relevance. SG 80 is met . The decree defining the fishery access rules requires that precise information on the fishery is delivered to the administration (including DDTM35). According to the decree, the operator must also declare all fishing operations at the end of each year. But, for the moment, these annual reports are missing, even if the CRC has planned to do it shortly. So the team considered SG 100 is not met because is it not demonstrate a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. b Sanctions Guide Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with post non-compliance exist and non-compliance exist, are non-compliance exist, are there is some evidence consistently applied and consistently applied and that they are applied. thought to provide demonstrably provide effective deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Until now, only one fishing boat targets this invasive species for which there is no cation catch limit (experimental fishery). There is no conflict between the fishery and other maritime activities (see PI 3.1.1. b justification and part 3.5.1 of the report). The overall system is considered effective within the area because the involved agencies (DDTM, CRC NB, Maritime Police) collaborate and work with the operator. The team considered that sanctions appear to be consistently applied and given that non-compliance in the fishery does not exist, they provide an effective deterrence. SG100 is met. c Compliance Guide Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of post thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers management system for comply with the comply with the the fishery under management system management system assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, when required, providing including, when required, including, providing information of importance providing information of information of importance to the effective importance to the to the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. fishery. Met? Y Y N

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 129

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Justifi The fishers comply with the management system under assessment (GPS points cation confirm fishing areas are respected). But, between 2013-2015, information and data about fishing activities of the fishery were not regularly conveyed to the DDTM35 by the CRC although all data were sent to them by the operator. No clear explanation was provided by the CRC to explain this gap. During the visit on site, the new ship owner stated that this point will be corrected. On this basis, there are some evidence to demonstrate that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, but according to the lack of data communication between the CRC and DDTM35 for the previous years, it is difficult for the team to consider there is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system. SG 80 is met but not SG 100. d Systematic non-compliance Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non- compliance. Met? Y Justifi According to communications from DML35 (DDTM) and CRC during the on-site cation visit, there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance, except for data sharing/transfer from CRC to administration (DDTM / DIR NAMO). The team conclude that SG 80 is met. Arrêté n° 2013-6540 Autorisation de prélèvement expérimental des crépidules en Baie du Mont St Michel. References

Arrêté n° 2015-11700 Modification Arrêté n° 2013-6540. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 130

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation There is a syst em of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage Gui de There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some place to evaluate key place to evaluate all parts parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- of the fishery-specific specific management specific management management system. system. system Met? Y Y N Justifi Since 2003, there has been no ongoing research projects on the Slipper limpet cation stock considered in this fishery. However, the short and long-term objectives for the new operator “Cap à l’Ouest” and ALD-SLP are to produce a robust catch monitoring (data) and reports on the fishing activity (catch, bycatch, CPUE, GPS points, etc.). There was a recent research project proposal between IFREMER and CRC to update the slipper limpet stock status in Bay of Mont Saint-Michel but it was not funded.There is no other project planned until now. In September, 2015, with the catch data collected, the advice of IFREMER has been asked, by the fishery operating managers (ALD-SLP, Cap à l’Ouest company) for assessing the population status and determining a "reference exploitation rate”to ensure the sustainability of the resource. There is no result at this time.

Further mechanisms to evaluate outcomes and objectives on P2 are implemented by as : - ICES with the surveys for the assessment of primary species stocks and ecosystem models), - French organisms like DPMA (national administrator of the MSFD), AAMP and Baie du Mont Saint-Michel Association with their environemental reports and survey related to ETP species, habitats and ecosystems.

Overall, the team considered there are good mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system, but not all parts of it . If SG 80 is met, SG100 is not met yet. b Internal and/or external review Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal internal review. and occasional external and external review. review. Met? Y N N Justifi Until now, as mentioned in PI 3.1.3.a and 3.2.1.a, the fishery-specific management cation system is only subject to occasional internal review. Indeed, the CRC confirmed that the results are presented to a limited audience of commercial fishing members of the CRC. SG 60 is met. After the CRC withdrew from the fishery (August 2015), the new owner of the fishing boat declared that such reviews will be improved with several regular reviews (internal and external), which should bring new ways for assessing the fate of the resource. But, today, there is no regular internal and occasional external review. The team considered SG 80 is not met . Association Baie du Mont Saint-Michel, 2012. Evaluation d’incidences Natura 2000. References Concessions “Crépidules” en Baie du Mont Saint-Michel (35). Février 2012. 27 pp

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 131

There is a syst em of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system.

Arbach Leloup F., Desroy N., Le Mao P., Pauly D., Le Pape O (2008) Interactions between a natural food web, shellfish farming and exotic species: the case of the Bay of Mont Saint Michel (France) Estuarine, coastal and shelf scienc e. 76(1) : 111- 120.

ICES reports 2012-2014 .

Le Fur, 2010. Référentiel pour la gestion dans les sites Natura 2000 en mer - Tome 1 Pêche professionnelle. Activités - Interactions - Dispositifs d’encadrement. Report by Agence des Aires Marines Protegees. 152 pp. Available online at: http://www.airesmarines.fr/Documentation/Referentiels-pour-la-gestion-des-sites- Natura-2000-en-mer

MSFD: DIRM Atlantique, 2014. Programme de mesures, Channel-North Sea sub- region.http://webissimo.developpement- durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Evaluation_initiale_Manche_-_mer_du_Nord_cle72511e.pdf. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 4

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 132

Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs

Appendix 1.2.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) for Principle 1 Table 1.2.1.a: Principle 1 CA Scoring Template - Target Species

Consequence Scoring element Consequence Score subcomponents

Crepidule fornicata Population size PRINCIPLE ONE: Reproductive Stock status outcome capacity

Age/size/sex

structure Geographic range 100 During the RBF meeting, several discussions allowed to clearly argue for choosing the geographic range as the selected subcomponent which the fishing activity is having the most impact. Indeed, all the present stakeholders, including Michel Blanchard, the retired scientist previously in charge of the slipper limpet at IFREMER, agreed this choice for the following reasons: - As the fishery targets colonies that are composed of several hermaphrodit individuals of various ages, with old females (previously males) covered by young males, the age, size and sex structure cannot be influenced by the fishery. - With regard to the reproductive strategy of the slipper limpet and to the lack of age.size/sex selectivity, the reproductive strategy cannot be modified by the fishery. - The harvest strategy aims at achieving a sustainable exploitation. But one main objective of the fishery is to limit the proliferation of slipper limpet beyond areas currently colonized to avoid further Rationale for most seabed degradations linked to the slipper limpet extent. All the vulnerable stakeholders agreed that, given the estimated biomass of the subcomponent stock (250000t), its estimated rate of increase, the limited fishing area with regards to the stock extent and the maximum catch capacity (5000 tons), the fishery cannot really affect the whole population size. - On the contrary, the geographic range is supposed to be affected by the fishery. Indeed, as described in 3.3.4.2., one of the primary goals of the fishery at its beginning was to avoid the further extent of the slipper limpet invasion in the bay and to allow marine bottom reconstitution to its previous state. Accordingly, the fishery targets the border of the slipper limpet distribution to limit or reduce its extension in the Bay. Furthermore, for maintaining clean their shellfish farms, oyster farmers also try to contain slipper limpets outside, Both these activities have or aim to have an influence on the geographic range of slipper limpet in the bay. Geographic range is thus the retained subcomponent. Most vulnerable during the site visit: • Geographic range: Final decision.

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 133

All the stakeholders, including scientists present or contacted by phone before, agreed to conclude that the fishery, if focused at the frontier of the stock, could probably limit its extent outside its present geographic range.

This is one main objective of the fishery to prevent any further disturbance on sea bottom, ecosystem functions and human activities. But as the Rationale for fishery would not operate deep inside this limit of the stock extent, it consequence score cannot contribute to limit the present range of the stock.

Therefore, it was concluded that insignificant change in Geographic Range. The impact of the fishing activity on this subcomponent cannot be differentiated from the natural variability of the slipper limpet population.

Final Consequence Analysis score : 100

Public Comment Draft Report: Limpet fishery page 134

Appendix 1.2.2 Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)

Table 1.2.2.a. PSA Rationale Table SITE VISIT RESULTS

PI number 1.1.1 Stock status

A. Productivity Scoring element (species) Crepidule fornicata Attribute Rationale Score Around 2-3 years old (Blanchard , 2001, Blanchard, 2005, Average age at maturity . 1 Le Mao pers. comm.) Around 10-11 years old (see part of 3.3.1 about species Average maximum age 2 biology, Blanchard, 2005 ; Blanchard & Hamon, 2009) Female have 2 reproductive periods a year, 20 000 eggs Fecundity each one, so 40 000 eggs a year (Blanchard & Hamon, 1 2009). Broadcast spawner (Blanchard, 2005). This species is a Reproductive strategy 1 protandric hermaphrodite. Trophic level Level 2, filter feeder (Arbach Leloup and al .,2008) 1 The stakeholders consulted neither the experts conclude in a score for this component. Therefore the team decided to Density dependence (to be score with the higher risk. used when scoring 3 invertebrates only) Density dependence for this species can be closer than an Allee effect, with lower reproductive capacity at low density with regard to the lack of settlement supply on soft bottoms. B. Susceptibility Fishery only where the scoring element is scored Dredge gear cumulatively Attribute Rationale Score Stock spread around 300 km 2 and the fishery operates in Areal Overlap 1 less than 10km 2(see Figures 1 & 6) There is a high overlap with the dredge. All slipper limpet Encounterability 3 (target species, P1) are fished alive and retained by the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 135 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

dredge. All slipper limpet stock are on the seabottom and the dredge is in contact with it. For more details on the fishing gear used by the fishery, see part 3.2.2 Dredge is not a selective fishing gear (Le Fur, 2010 ; Gosling, E. 2015), no sorting on the sea bottom (all slipper Selectivity of gear type 3 limpets, mature and non mature slipper limpet are caught by the dredge used (see part. 3.2.2 and Figure 5). Even though, slipper limpet is a robust species, with a high survival rate if it is dumped, it’s mandatory by the decree in Post capture mortality force, that fishers do not discard slipper limpet. So all 3 slipper limpets are retained. By this way the Post capture mortality can be considered as high. Catch (weight) only where the scoring element is NA scored cumulatively

MSC WORKSHEET TABLE PSA 1.1.1

Productivity Scores [1-3] Susceptibility Scores [1-3] Cumulative only

First of each Scoring scoring Family Scientific Common Species Fishery PSA Score PSA Consequence(CA) Score (per score FinalMSC scoringelement) element element name name name type descriptor maturity at Averageage Averagemax age Fecundity Averagemax size Averagesize Maturity at Reproductivestrategy Trophiclevel Density Dependance Productivity (average) Total Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capturemortality (multiplicative) Total Catch(tons) Weighting Total Weighted Score PSA Weighted score PSA-derived MSC RiskCategory Name scoring MSC guidepost Atlantic Calyptrae Crepidula Slipper 1 First idés fornicata Limpet Invertebrate SITE VISIT 1 2 1 1 1 3 1,50 1 3 3 3 1,65 2,23 91 Low ≥80 100 96

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 page 136 Date of issue: 8 October 2014 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Appendix 1.3 Conditions

Table A1.3: Condition 1 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place.

Performance SG80a.- Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is Indicator reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Score 75 The slipper limpet fishery is part of a legal framework through an experimental fishing authorization decree produced in June 2013 (Arrêté n°2013-6540) and amended on September 4, 2015 (Arrêté n°2015-11700). The duration of the experimental fishing authorization has been reduced, now extending until December 31, 2016.

The legal framework includes several HCRs established according to CRC and CRPMEM Brittany recommendation and IFREMER scientists advice :

- Experimental fishing authorization for slipper limpet to limit its expansion in bay of Mont Saint-Michel and restore the seabed (Art 1). - Delimited fishing areas in Cancale Bay, according to where slipper limpet Justification expansion is active (Art. 2) - Limited entry fishery (one vessel permit). - All vessels equipped to catch this species (only one at this time, “PAPY“ vessel, fitting-out by “Cap à l’Ouest” company and owned by the CRC. - Only slipper limpets can be landed by the fishery (no other retained species) and no slipper limpet can be discarded (Art. 4) - For each catch, fishers have to notice on a sheet: dates, hours and areas of the fishing operation, the catch quantities and an estimation of bycatch volume (Art 5) - At the end of each year, fishery members have to write a annual operating balance report (Art 6).

On this basis, the team considered that generally understood HCRs are in place for Cancale bay slipper limpet fishery. In the current state of knowledge, the

Public Comment Draft Report page 137

exploitation of the fishing area at their maximum possibilities can’t reduce the biomass of slipper limpets (the maximal planned catches, 5,000 tons per year), related to the single boat capacity. Today the fishing capacity is much lower than the natural biomass increase estimated in 2003 (10,000t per year, Blanchard, 2009). The HCR are thus expected to keep the stock at a sustainable level, thanks to : a limited access fishery (1 vessel), a defined period for the exploratory permits (until end of 2016), reporting requirements for landings, 5,000t maximal annual landings objective, and a defined fishing area.

Moreover, as slipper limpet uptake of primary production are considered as a pressure on this ecosystem (Arbach Leloup et al., 2008 ; Cugier et al., 2010), the level of exploitation is consistent with ecosystem needs. So the team considered that Generally understood HCRs are in place and are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached . SG 60 is met.

But there is a lack of recent data to ensure that the stock is fluctuating above a sustainable level, and that actual exploitation rate is keeping the stock at a level consistent with MSY although MSY is unknown so far. According to these elements, the team concluded that SG 80 is not met. By the fourth surveillance audit, the HCRs shall ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. This target could be set at the Cancale Bay level (or at the Mont St Michel Bay level), as long as there is confidence that the Condition HCRs in place could act to maintain the stock at or around the target level.

Evidence must be presented to prove this well defined HCRs to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. Year 1 : The slipper limpet fishery shall demonstrate the start of a process to agree a target MSY or similar via the scientific body (as Ifremer), the managers of the French slipper limpet fishery (including French fishing authorities: DPMA, DDTM, DIRM NAMO), or all together, or some other process as appropriate. Simultaneously, there is evidence that the slipper limpet fishery had taken steps to gather all catch data and give it to scientists. No changes to score anticipated Milestones at this stage.

Year 2: The fishery shall prove that there is an agreement on an appropriate target, consistent with maintaining the stock at a level of high productivity. This appropriate target have been outlined and discussed with stakeholders. No changing score.

Public Comment Draft Report page 138

Year 3 : If required, the fishery has to give evidence that additional management has been implemented to ensure that the target can be met. No changing score.

Year 4 : The fishery has to provide documented information about the process to keep target under review based on outcome of data analysis (linked to Condition 2). Score: 80 Year 1 : Data on catches and fishing efforts are collected routinely. An internally analyzing report is produced by SLP. This report may contain fishing areas, CPUE and by catch evolution. This report is presented to partners, scientists (IFREMER for example), managers (CRPMEM) and authorities (DIRM, DDTM). However, at this stage, weak data only allow to discuss about a management target, not to take a specific decision.

Year 2 : The entire catch data base is transferred to a scientific body to be analyzed. The scientific body could be IFREMER or Agrocampus Ouest, according to their expertise and availability. Scientists try to define a reference point. Historical data analysis and report will help stakeholders (DDTM, DIRM, Client action CRPMEM) to discuss and find an agreement about management target. plan

Year 3 : Catching data (CPUE, fishing area) continue to be collected routinely. The database becomes more and more robust. The database is transferred once a year to scientific body to be analyzed and to update precedent year conclusions. Scientists try to define a reference points. This report will help stakeholders (DDTM, DIRM, CRPMEM) to discuss and find an agreement about management target.

Year 4: A meeting with stakeholders (CRPMEM, DIRM, DDTM, scientists) will be organized each year to present monitoring annual data and implement measures previously defined according to the monitoring results. To achieve this outcome, it is recommended that the client engages with the Consultation on scientists (from IFREMER) and managers of the French slipper limpet fishery, condition including French fishing authorities (DPMA, DDTM, DIRM NAMO).

Public Comment Draft Report page 139

Table A1.3: Condition 2 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Performance SG80a.- Sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock Indicator productivity, fleet composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Score 75 A former monitoring (2013 - September 2015) was carried out by the crew who only estimated the amount of catch at the end of fishing. Volume and traceability (dates and fishing areas) were well reported for slipper limpet. Since September 2015 (vessel changed of fitting-out), significant improvements of this monitoring have been done. A new procedure for monitoring the catch is in place on the ship. The crew notes the number of individuals captured for each drag line on ad- hoc forms. This improved procedure allows to know as precisely as possible the composition of catches.

The slipper limpets tonnage collected and fishing location are recorded on a logbook. For each dredge feature, one geobox (slipper limpets container) is allocated, and associated with one number which refers to the date and GPS coordinates of fishing. This catch monitoring protocol creates a variable CPUE (Catch Per Unit Effort) for the fishery and a "meat production per unit effort" indicator. Justification Considering the information collated from these data, the expertise of IFREMER has been asked by the client to assess the stock status and its current biomass (as soon as time series of fishing data are strong enough to run a statistic model) and determine whether the rate of exploitation ensure the sustainability of the resource (once early in 2016).

However, these relevant information only concern the small fraction of the stock subject to fishing. Relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity were collated in 2003 and exist but cannot be considered to provide sufficient information on the present situation at the stock scale. On the contrary, information on the fleet and fishing activities is totally available and comprehensive.

According to these previous elements, the team concluded that some relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy, so SG 60 is met .

Public Comment Draft Report page 140

But the team considered we do not have sufficient and recent relevant information about the stock, so SG 80 is not met. By the fourth surveillance audit, evidence must be presented to support that Condition sufficient relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet

composition and other data is available to support the harvest strategy. Year 1 : The slipper limpet fishery shall demonstrate that the collection of reliable data on catch and the production of regular updating reports, including fishing indicators time series (CPUE) is taking place. No changing score.

Year 2 : the fishery shall prove that all this data are transfered to a scientific body which will analyze on this basis the fishery and slipper limpet stock evolution, in order to establish a "reference rate of exploitation”. This reference rate will allow for estimating a minimum level of CPUE to ensure the sustainability of the resource in the fishing area. No changing score.

Year 3 : The fishery shall demonstrate that information on the fishery and slipper Milestones limpet stock evolution, and the related analysis of the scientific body,are submitted annualy to national scientific institution and managers of the French slipper limpet fishery, including French fishing authorities (DPMA, DDTM, DIRM NAMO). At the same time, fisheries shall establish, in accordance with the scientific body, a decision tree of harvest control rules to explain how the fishery will be regulated if the CPUE indicator falls below the minimum rate. No changing score.

Year 4: Fisheries shall ensure that, in addition to data and scientific advice, the annual decision related to harvest control rules is transferred to national scientific institution and managers of the French slipper limpet fishery.. Score: 80 Year 1 : Data on catch and fishing effort are collected routinely. An internally analyzing report is produced every 6 months by SLP. This report may contain fishing areas, CPUE and by catch evolution. However, weak data does not allow to define reference points.

Client action Year 2 : The entire catch data base is transferred to a scientific body to be plan analyzed. The scientific body could be IFREMER or Agrocampus Ouest,

according to their expertise and availability. With CPUE data provided by the fishery and the available scientific data, a "reference rate of exploitation” should be determined.

Year 3 : The data (CPUE, fishing area) continue to be collected routinely. The

Public Comment Draft Report page 141

database becomes more and more robust. The database is transferred once a year to scientific body to be analyzed and to update precedent year conclusions about reference exploitation rates. Conclusions of this report are share with partners, fishery managers and authorities. In parallel, harvest control rules may be defined between fishing managers and scientists. It may consist in a decision tree defining harvest control rules in case of decrease of CPUE below minimum rates.

Year 4 : Database is more robust and Management is more efficient. Catching data base is transferred to scientists to be analyzed and to update precedent year conclusions. Scientists give an advice about fish stock status and maximum sustainable exploitation rate. This advice is discussed between scientists, fishery managers and authorities to find a consensus about next year maximum exploitation rate. To achieve this outcome, it is recommended that the client engages with the Consultation on scientists (from IFREMER) and managers of the French slipper limpet fishery, condition including French fishing authorities (DPMA, DDTM, DIRM NAMO).

Public Comment Draft Report page 142

Table A1.3: Condition 3 3.2. 2 The fishery -specific manage ment system includes effective decision - making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the Performance fishery. Indicator

SG80a.- There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Score 75 Until summer 2015, there were some issues in adjusting fishing operations with the “PAPY” between CRC, ALD-SLP and DDTM35. Hence, the catches were not landed on a regular basis to consolidate an appropriate and adaptive decision- making process to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.

Since the visit on site (September), the situation has been evolved to encourage partnership among parties and improve decision-making process in place an achieve the fishery objectives :

- Meeting about the assessements updating on operations to confirm the production targets for coming months (Sept. 22, Oct. 22) with Ifremer and the CRPMEM; - Two meetings between ALD-SLP and President of CRPMEM were held in Rennes on 10/19/15 and 02/03/16 to talk about the transition of the Justification planned management system between 2016 and 2017.Further meetings with the presidents of CRPMEM, CDPMEM 35,22 and 29 are scheduled for 03/15/16; - The authorities have also been requested. Mail exchanges took place with the DDTM, and a meeting is scheduled on Feb. 18 with the DIRM to discuss on issue of floating SMEs in the French fishing and the conditions for access to this type of permit.

For decisions relating to P2, there are established processes both at EU level ( Natura2000 and MPA networks, MSFD) and at French level there are established processes for debating and setting local harvest regulations for gear use, protected species etc.

On this basis, the team considered there is a some decision-making processes in place to achieve the fishery-specific objectives relating to P2, but it is not well established yet for decisions relating to P1. SG 60 is met, but not SG 80.

Public Comment Draft Report page 143

By the third surveillance audit, the fishery must demonstrate there are Condition established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to

achieve the fishery-specific objectives. The following elements can be verified during the annual surveillance audit:

Year 1. All parties involved in the management of the fishery should be working to develop decision-making processes for the fishery. The client should work to encourage this plan in forums and meetings involved and support it, if requested to do so, by providing information or data from the fishery. No changing score.

Year 2. Evidence that measures and strategies to achieve the fishery objectives Milestones have been outlined and discussed with stakeholders, and an agreed policy document developed including a description of the use of the rule in the decision- making process. Managers should approve of the decision-making processes of the fishery. The client must encourage this to take place and provide all possible information to managers. No changing score.

Year 3. The client shall provide information on the existence and implementation of decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objective. Score: 80 All information and the briefing documents will be available for Bureau Veritas certification to proof stakeholder collaboration.

Year 1: The experimental fishing authorization, delivered by the Prefecture of Brittany, is valid until the end of 2016. Discussions and meeting are ongoing in 2016 with professional fisheries organisms (CRPMEM) and authorities (DIRM, DPMA) to obtain “Permis de mise en exploitation” (PME) for the fishing boat “Papy”. This PME create a European fishing license and allows slipper limpet to Client action use the traditional French fisheries management. As a result of meetings with the plan CRPMEM, it appears that PME requests are numerous, and it may be difficult to obtain it in 2016. However, administrative procedures will still be conducted in this way to try to obtain this permit. In the case of a lack of permit, it may be necessary to try to extend the experimental fishing authorization.

Year 2 : Two scenario are possible.

- Scenario 1 : fishery obtain a PME and European fishing license in 2016/2017. In this case, professional fisheries organisms CRPMEM take

Public Comment Draft Report page 144

a key role in the management of slipper limpet fishery. Slipper limpet should be integrated to a specialized strategic committee, where fishers, managers, authorities and scientists are represented. Scientists can present results of fishing database report. This committee is a way to discuss about and take into account scientist results, fishing strategy, management system and objectives for the next year. - Scenario 2: fishery does not obtain PME in 2016, but an extension of experimental fishery authorization. In this case, the situation would be close to the situation at Year 1. Meeting would be still organized between fishers, CRPMEM and authorities, to try to obtain PME and European fishing license. A meeting would be organized, once a year, to present and discuss with these stakeholders about fishery strategy for the next year.

Year 3 : Both scenarios presented for the 2nd year are also possible for the third year, because of uncertainty on PME deliverance. The aimed decision-making process is schematized below. The consultation between all stakeholders is optimum with the first scenario (PME, European License). Fishery specific objectives, measures and strategy are discussed during annual strategic committee.

Public Comment Draft Report page 145

To achieve this outcome, it is needed that the client consultes scientists from Consultation on IFREMER, managers of the French slipper limpet fishery (Regional fishing condition Committee, Cap à l’Ouest company) and French fishing authorities (DPMA, DDTM, DIRM NAMO), in order to work all together to reach the milestones.

Public Comment Draft Report page 146

Table A1.3: Condition 4 3.2.4 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management Performance system. Indicator

SG80b.- The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. Score 70

Until now, as mentioned in PI 3.1.3.a and 3.2.1.a, the fishery-specific management system is only subject to occasional internal review. Indeed, the CRC confirmed that the results are presented to a limited audience of commercial fishing members of the CRC. SG 60 is met. Justification After the CRC withdrew from the fishery (August 2015), the new owner of the

fishing boat declared that such reviews will be improved with several regular reviews (internal and external), which should bring new ways for assessing the fate of the resource. But, today, there is no regular internal and occasional external review. The team considered SG 80 is not met . By the third surveillance audit, the fishery must demonstrate that his own specific Condition management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external

review. The following elements can be verified during the annual surveillance audit:

Year 1. The client should work to encourage regular internal review by providing information or data from the fishery. No changing score.

Year 2. Evidence that internal reviews of the fishery-specific management Milestones system are regular and evidence that the client encourage external review to take place and provide all possible information required. No changing score.

Year 3. The client shall provide information and evidence that fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. Score: 80 Year 1 : A regular internal audit will be agreed between SLP-ALD Compagny and Client action fishery operator CAP A L’OUEST. Two internal audits will be performed annually, plan to check the correct input of by catches and compliance quality and traceability

specifications. Management system is regularly internal discussed between SLP-

Public Comment Draft Report page 147

ALD and CAP A L’OUEST.

Year 2 : Bureau Veritas will access to all audit reports to check the achievement of them. Management system is regularly discussed between SLP-ALD, CAP A L’OUEST, authorities, scientists and CRPMEM, during specialized strategic committee. Fishery data will be available for scientist stock and fishery evaluation. Final client audit are achievable in case of special client specifications.

Year 3 : Management system is regularly discussed between SLP-ALD, CAP A L’OUEST, authorities, scientists and CRPMEM, during specialized strategic committee. Ad hoc external evaluation will be implemented. This external assessment can take various forms such as one-time external observer boarding (Obsmer scientific program), collaboration with research center (IFREMER, Agrocampus Ouest) in case of research program or studies on slipper limpets, its stock, its impact or sector studies. External evaluation can also be implemented by authorities. These documents will be shared with stakeholders to feed the concerted management system. Consultation on condition

Public Comment Draft Report page 148

Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports

First Peer Reviewer Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: No comments or respond required. The slipper limpet fishery is a newly-developed fishery based on an introduced species. The default assessment tree has been appropriately modified to incorporate additional scoring issues under PIs 2.5.2 and 2.5.3. There are some PIs for which further information is required to justify the score, but overall the assessment team’s conclusion that the fishery should be certified is justified. In relation to the target stock, it can be assumed that the maximum exploitation rate will be around 2%, and that catches will therefore be sustainable. As this is a relatively new fishery, data collection protocols and elements of the harvest strategy need further development. Conditions against two PIs in Principle 1 have been raised.

The fishery uses an oyster dredge employed for very short (5 minute) tows and has virtually no bycatch of primary, secondary or ETP species, and the fishery operates in a highly-restricted geographical area and does not overlap with VMEs. There are therefore no conditions against PIs within Principle 2. There is a sound management system in place, although there are one or two gaps in the system that have not yet been implemented for this newly-developed fishery and so two conditions are raised against PIs within Principle 3.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes, but milestones for CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 conditions 1 & 2 need outcome within the specified timeframe? revision. [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: The CAB considered the comments from both Peer Reviewers together Condition 1. The current harvest strategy is high-level and describes the with the HS and HCRs of the general approach to harvesting slipper limpets. To ensure that that the harvest fishery. The team concluded that strategy incorporates more specific elements that demonstrate that the strategy the condition was more appropriate

Public Comment Draft Report page 149

is responsive to the state of the stock, a condition is appropriate. The condition for PI 1.2.2. As such the condition is appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified has been edited and the client timeframe. A three year timeframe is given to meet the condition, but milestones action plan edited by the client. are given for years 1-4. Regarding the rest of the conditions Condition 2. There is a lack of information for this fishery and therefore a the team reviewed their milestones condition is appropriate. The timescale for the condition to be met (3 years) and timelines were aligned. does not match up with the annual milestones. Also the milestones require “good information to be available on all other fishery removals” but a score of 80 is given for SIc. The milestones need some revision therefore.

Condition 3. The condition raised should improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level within the specified timeframe.

Condition 4. The condition raised should improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level within the specified timeframe.

Do you think the client action plan is Yes, but requires evidence CAB Response sufficient to close the conditions raised? that relevant authorities [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub- will cooperate with the clauses] client. Justification: The CAB considered the comments Condition 1. The CAP for condition 1 is comprehensive. It includes data from both Peer Reviewers together collection and proposals for setting reference points that will be used in HCRs. with the HS and HCRs of the It should be sufficient to close the condition but it will require detailed fishery. The team concluded that consultation with IFREMER in relation to reference points and HCRs, and an the condition was more appropriate agreement with IFREMER and other relevant authorities should be provided. for PI 1.2.2. As such the condition has been edited and the client Condition 2. The CAP essentially draws on that for condition 1 in order to meet action plan edited by the client. condition 2. It should be sufficient to meet the condition, but again some evidence that IFREMER (and other authorities) have agreed to work with the Regarding the rest of the conditions client is required. the team reviewed their milestones and timelines were aligned. Condition 3. The change of management system that will take place in 2016/17 should provide the opportunity for the development of formal, transparent decision-making processes. Letters of support from the relevant authorities should be provided; Condition 4. No further comment.

Public Comment Draft Report page 150

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

1.1.1 Yes (RBF) Yes (RBF) N/A RBF used. See Table 2.

1.1.2 N/A N/A N/A RBF used for PI 1.1.1, so this PI has a We would like to clarify that this was a default score of 80. mistake made by the team. The second PR highlighted that we do not have to score 1.1.2.

1.2.1 Yes No Yes In SIa, it is stated that the overall harvest --> SIb : We agree with the PR. The team strategy has two objectives - to provide added information about the proliferation slipper limpet landings and to limit the limiting to support the PI rational. See proliferation of slipper limpet beyond areas correction done in the report currently colonised. However the rationale for SIb does not provide evidence that the --> SIf : We remove the last sentence has to harvest strategy is achieving the second avoid confusion. objective. SIf relates solely to unwanted catch of the The team changed the condition to PI 1.2.2. target stock (and not primary or secondary species) and the rationale should be limited to the target stock.

Public Comment Draft Report page 151

1.2.2 Yes No N/A In the absence of agreed reference points for The team has considered both Peer this fishery, there are no conventional HCRs Reviewer comments and decided to raise a which describe the actions that management condition in PI 1.2.2. Moreover, the team takes in response to changes in stock status improved the writing of SGa rationale. in relation to reference points. Under this scenario, CR guidance states that the assessment team should determine whether there are “management tools and measures in place that are consistent with ensuring that susceptibility of the target species to removal is no higher than that which would cause the risk to the target species to be above an acceptable risk range”. The rationale for SIa should therefore explain clearly how management tools and measures ensure that susceptibility.of the target species does not increase.

1.2.3 No No Yes, but the There is a lack of information for the fishery We agree with the PR. The Team modified timescale for the and so the condition in relation to SIa is the milestones in the condition and included condition to be appropriate. However some revision of the some additional information about shellfish met and the milestones is required. farmers removals. annual milestones Historically the processing plants used do not match up. slipper limpets collected during cleaning of oyster farms. If such removal of slipper limpets still occurs, then information on the level of these removals should be included in the rationale for SIc. The milestones for the condition include a demonstration that “good information is available on all other removals from the stock”, which does not match up with a score of 80 for SIc. Some clarification is required.

1.2.4 N/A N/A N/A RBF used for PI 1.1.1, so this PI has a default score of 80.

Public Comment Draft Report page 152

2.1.1 Yes Yes N/A

2.1.2 Yes Yes N/A

2.1.3 Yes Yes N/A

2.2.1 Yes Yes N/A

2.2.2 Yes No N/A The rationales for SIa and SIb refer to that The team has taken into consideration PR for PI 2.2.1, but they should also refer to the comment and has included more information. rationale for PI 2.1.2, as a similar strategy is in place for both primary and secondary species.

2.2.3 Yes Yes N/A

2.3.1 Yes Yes N/A

2.3.2 Yes Yes? N/A SIb assesses whether there is a The team is confident with it’s score. There is comprehensive strategy in place, whereas no clear evidence because identification of SId considers whether the strategy has been skate species are not clear all the time. So implemented successfully and is achieving score is SG80. its objectives. It seems more appropriate therefore that the lack of evidence that the The team changed rationales from SIb to skate/ray identification element of the SIc. strategy is working successfully should be considered under SId instead of SIb. The The skate raja clavata is listed OSPAR assessment team should therefore consider endangered species. allocating a lower score for SId. We finally agree on scoring 80 to Scoring Issue d.

Public Comment Draft Report page 153

2.3.3 Yes Yes? N/A The concern that the newly-implemented Ok , the team have used some information skate/ray identification sheets are yet to from PI2.3.3(a) to complete PI 2.3.2(a) deliver good quality information is perhaps rationals. better scored under this PI than under PI 2.3.2 (see comments above). See correction done in the report

2.4.1 Yes Yes N/A

2.4.2 Yes Yes N/A

2.4.3 Yes Yes N/A

2.5.1 Yes Yes N/A

2.5.2 Yes No N/A For SIb, there needs to be stronger Ok, the team add more justification from PI justification that the SG100 is met. 2.4.2 and 2.5.1 to support SG100

See correction done in the report

2.5.3 Yes Yes N/A

3.1.1 Yes Yes N/A

3.1.2 Yes Yes N/A

3.1.3 Yes Yes N/A

3.2.1 Yes Yes N/A

Public Comment Draft Report page 154

3.2.2 Yes No Yes Additional information is required in SIc to More information relative to the support the conclusion that the precautionary precautionary approach has been given in approach is used in decision-making scoring table in the report in SIc processes.

3.2.3 No No N/A For SIa, no evidence is presented to The team is confident with the justification demonstrate compliance with on-board done. This fishery is an specific case. regulations relating to discarding (through for Information on discarded species have been example on-board observers) or that fishing precised in the report where the data show activity has been restricted to the licensed the tiny quantity of species discarded. And area (through fishery inspection vessel since september, meetings between the reports or from VMS data). For SIb, no stakeholders to monitor this fishery have information is given on what sanctions are in increased. The decree stipulates that if there place, and how they are consistently applied. is fault, the fishing rights will not be renewed. It is the largest penalty. And the term of this authorization is already very short.

3.2.4 Yes Yes Yes

Public Comment Draft Report page 155

Second Peer Reviewer Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB R esponse appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: No comments or respond required. The assessment provides a generally good description of the fishery – prosecuting an introduced and very productive species in a carefully managed environment with a single vessel. The recommendation to certify the fishery seems appropriate and is generally well supported. Key issues remaining seem to relate to information on the state of the stock, reference levels, harvest control rules relating to constraining harvest should this be required and involvement and integration of management agencies in achieving this. These are discussed further below in relation to conditions of certification.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: The CAB considered the comments Specific comments on each condition are provided in the table below. In general (and from both Peer Reviewers together with recognizing that translating from French to English no doubt does not help), the the HS and HCRs of the fishery. The conditions do not seem to clearly articulate the gaps between the fishery’s current team concluded that the condition was situation and the requirements of the SG80s; this is the most critical aspect which can more appropriate for PI 1.2.2. As such be the least clearly stated. This lack of clarity is then amplified in the milestones which the condition has been edited and the often fail to clearly set out the measurable improvements expected in each year. The client action plan edited by the client. condition for PI 1.2.1 should be considered in relation to PI 1.2.2 instead, with appropriate milestones. Regarding the rest of the conditions the team reviewed their milestones and timelines were aligned.

Do you think the client action plan is No CAB Response sufficient to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub- clauses] Justification: The wording of the conditions and Again, specific comments in relation to each condition/Action Plan are provided milestones has been redrafted. In below. No doubt following from the lack of clarity in the wording of conditions addition, the team reviewed their

Public Comment Draft Report page 156

and milestones, the client action plans can also be difficult to relate to the milestones and timelines were various SG80 requirements (as they would relate to this fishery). Greater aligned. precision in the milestone requirements should guide the client towards the actions required to meet the standard. Where support from other organisations is needed to meet conditions, this support should be explicitly confirmed. It is expected that greater clarity in the wording of conditions and milestones would assist the client in preparing more relevant and targeted action plans.

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

Public Comment Draft Report page 157

1.1.1 Y See RBF NA This PI was scored using the RBF. Correction done in the report. commentary The definition of the stock as being a separate stock within Bay of Mont Saint- Michel would be expected given the life history of the species. So although there is a wider metapopulation of slipper limpets along the coast, it is expected that the population within the bay would respond separately to management interventions – it would be neither reliant on other sources of recruitment to maintain the population, nor would other populations rely on this stock for recruitment. The decision to treat this as a separate stock and to determine that there are no overlapping fisheries would therefore appear correct.

It would be appropriate to delete example reference points etc in the evaluation table to prevent confusion.

1.1.2 N N NA If the RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1, this Yes. The reviewer is right. The change PI is not scored (Table PF1) – this will was done in the report. also prevent confusion.

Public Comment Draft Report page 158

1.2.1 Y N N – see It actually appears, in relation to SIa, that We decreased the score to SG80, and comments the measures in place (as described) we complete and transfer the condition may meet the SG80 requirements for a to PI 1.2.2. harvest strategy and so a score of 80 for this PI. See correction done in the report. The condition seems to relate more closely to the implementation of HCRs, so this condition may be more relevant, and more understandable to fishers and managers, if it were related to PI 1.2.2 HCRs and reference levels (see comments below). Milestones could also be clearer for each year to make the condition requirements more transparent. The action plan produced seems to relate to developing HCRs, which seems more appropriate.

1.2.2 Y N NA The scoring comments do not indicate According to PI 1.2.1 comments and any HCRs which will reduce the rationales, the team decided to open a explotation rate as PRI is approached. condition. While the reproductive capacity of the stock is indeed high, and the fishing See correction done in the report. effort low, this does not actually meet the requirements of the SG80. This is also specified in SD2.1.1.2; in relation to this, the target RP has not been modified for this introduced species and so remains something equivalent to MSY, this equivalence should be justified. SG60 appears to be met, but text specific to this should be included. The condition set for PI 1.2.1 may be more appropriately applied (with relevant milestones) to this PI.

Public Comment Draft Report page 159

1.2.3 Y Y – but see N The condition appears to have been We maintain the score and we have comments on raised because of insufficient information complete the condition (modification of condition on the structure and status of the wider milestones). stock throughout the bay. This information may or may not be See correction done in the report in PI absolutely necessary to support the 1.2.3 and in the condition 2 PI 1.2.3. harvest strategy, but the team consider it is – hence the condition. However, the milestones then talk about establishing CPUE etc for the harvested fraction of the wider stock, and reference levels. This essentially replicates Condition 1 – as reflected in the client’s action plan. The actions required by the condition therefore appear disconnected from the reason for the ‘75’ score. The team should be very clear in their own minds of what information is missing to meet the SG80 requirements, and milestones should set out the required outcomes to address these deficiencies.

1.2.4 Y Y NA This PI is scored a default 80.

Public Comment Draft Report page 160

2.1.1 Y Y NA Lesser spotted dogfish, whelk and brill According to ICES survey and scientific do not seem to have limit or target reports about the following 3 species reference points, which would indicate (Lesser spotted dogfish, brill and sole), that this is a secondary rather than all these stock have some target primary species.Nevertheless, the score reference points, which support their is supported. categorization as primary species. Only the classification of whelk could be tendancious between primary and secondary. Because whelk stock assessment and management in Granville Bay is based on CPUE analysis and the current exploitation strategy for Lower-Normandy fishery consists in pursuing the gradual reduction of fishing effort.

See correction done in the report.

2.1.2 Y Probably – see NA Under SIa, this may better be described SIa : Yes, indeed the described strategy question on SIe as an ‘operational strategy’. is mainly an "operational strategy", so For SId, lesser spotted dogfish appears we switch "intern strategy" into to be a secondary species, in which "operational strategy" case shark finning should be addressed under PI 2.2.2. We consider lesser spotted dogfish as For SIe, there has indeed been regular primary species, so shark finning should reviews of measures which may be addressed under PI 2.1.2 and not in minimise unwanted catches. However, PI 2.2.2. this does not appear to be a routine Team decided not to change it. activity – e.g. if no more reviews until 2018, will a condition be raised at SIf : During the surveillance audits the surveillance audit? team has to review and update the information of the fishery. If the team considers that the fishery is not moving forward we will consider an issue of concern.

2.1.3 Y Y NA

Public Comment Draft Report page 161

2.2.1 Y Y NA But see comments above on See rationale gave in PI 2.1.1 categorisation of species.

2.2.2 Y Probbaly – see NA The same issues apply as to PI 2.1.2. See correction done in the report question on PI 2.1.2 SIe

2.2.3 Y Y NA

2.3.1 Y Y NA ETP species are those listed in National Not agree. ETP species listed in the EC nature conservation legislation or Habitat and Birds Directives (European specified binding international Commission) are matching with the MSC agreements. The species mentioned in definition of ETP. We put some details in the report (and skates/rays in the scoring the rationale. commentary) do not seem to fit these categories and so may more See correction done in the report. appropriately be considered as secondary species.

2.3.2 Y N NA As the species mentioned as ETP seem to be secondary species, management measures may need to be considered under PI 2.2.2. All raja species included in OSPAR has It is not clear how measures are been considered as ETP. The team ‘designed to achieve above national and have chosen to use a precaution international requirements’ for SIa. approach, so all skate species are Conversely, reallocating species to considered ETPs. ‘secondary’ may mean that SG100 is met for SIb. See correction done in the report For SIe, the argument not to award SG100 does not seem to correspond with that for PIs 2.2.2 and 2.1.2?

2.3.3 Y Y NA

Public Comment Draft Report page 162

2.4.1 N Y NA For SIa, information appears available to SIa : we add some references to support identify each commonly encountered recovery times of the habitats affected ( habitat. CR v2.0 is very precise in what Hiddink et al 2006) and support fishing constitutes serious or irreversible harm gear footprint on seabottom habitat in terms of recovery and speed of affected (Eigaard and al.,2015). recovery from fishing impacts. Several studies have been carried out which SIc : all affected habitats are classed as would support recovery times of the commonly encountered because as habitats affected, e.g. Hiddink et al 2006 explained in part 3.4.4, there is no (Ecosystems 9: 1190-1199) and Hiddink overlap between the fishery and VME et al 2006 (Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63: habitats (see Fig 1 and 19) 721-736) may also be relevant (noting that the latter models to 90% recovery – far in excess of MSC requirements). For SIc, it should be confirmed that all affected habitats are classed as either commonly encountered or VME habitats.

2.4.2 Y Y NA The scoring here is very precautionary, The team give a SG 85 score according but appears to be within the bounds of to discussion with scientific expert who interpretation for an assessment team. well knows habitat and ecosystem in Cancale Bay. The fishing activity could have harmful consequences, locally. Thereby, the team considers there is not a full strategy in place for managing the impact, for the moment.

2.4.3 Y Y NA Same comment as for PI 2.4.2. Idem than in 2.4.2. No research has been done assessing benthic interactions in the slipper limpet fishery specifically. So the Team applied a precautionary approach.

2.5.1 Y Y NA

Public Comment Draft Report page 163

2.5.2 N Y NA For SIa, the information used to support SG80, and information presented e.g. in PI2.4.2 would support a score of 100, Text modified to clear state if that the but this is not clearly set out at present. fishery support a higher score. See SId is an amendement to the standard correction done in the report. assessment tree and appears consistent with MSC requirements and is scored appropriately.

2.5.3 Y Y NA SIf is an amendement to the standard assessment tree. The use of the term ‘biodiversity’ appears somewhat inappropriate here – ‘ecosystem Suggest modification done. structure and function’ may be more appropriate. Nevertheless, in this fishery the information supports the score allocated and such a change in wording is unlikely to affect this.

3.1.1 Y N NA For SIb it seems the French legal The team decided to maintain the score system per se has presumably been well less than 80 for this SG because even tested in respect to fishery and though there is an operational system for environmental legislation (such testing is this fishery has not been tested yet. not restricted to the UoA) and so a score of only 80 appears very precautionary.

3.1.2 Y Y NA

Public Comment Draft Report page 164

3.1.3 N Y NA While the scoring is almost certainly Additional information has been added correct, the justification seems to refer in the scoring table in the report to take essentially to the management of the into account PR comment. UoA. Such long-term objectives relate to management policy at a higher level than that relating to the UoA (SA4.5.1) and this should be included here (or replace much of the existing text). It should also be specified where such objectives are required by policy.

3.2.1 N Possibly NA The scoring commentary here should be The team tried to reorganized the compared with PI 3.1.3 – both relate to infomartion to clearly identified the short the UoA. The comments for this PI do and long-term objectives of the fishery. not seem to set out what the short and Additional information has been added in long-term objectives are for the stock or the scoring table in the report. for ecosystem components. Future actions should not be scored until they are fully enacted. The scoring is, again, probably correct but has not been fully justified.

3.2.2 Y N Y – but see For SIb, it is not clear that decision- Further information was given by the comments making team on how the operational system processes respond to all issues takes into account all information. identified in relevant ‘research, monitoring, Action plan to Condition has been evaluation and consultation’. The reviewed by the client justification given seems more appropriate to SG80 only. The Condition appears appropriate although the action plan does not seem to relate to the milestones. Also, involvement of other organisations is required to achieve the condition requirments, and it is not clear that such involvement has been secured.

Public Comment Draft Report page 165

3.2.3 Y Y NA

3.2.4 N Probably N For SIa, the rationale provided does not Usually, for many exploited species really set out mechanisms to evaluate and/or marine ecosystems there are the management system in relation to official mechanisms for external reviews the stock. IFREMER can provide advice of fisheries. For the Slipper Limpet in this and reviews, but is this purely in relation area, the last real scientific review was to specific requests, e.g. from the done in 2004, 10 years ago. No other operator of the fishery, or would they assessment has been performed since carry out systemic reviews? This relates then and no interest has been raised by also to SIb – the operator has indicated scientific Institutes. So, official external internal and external reviews, but by reviews are not devoted for the fishery whom, and how will these be triggered. until now. Beyond the mandatory The scoring is probably correct, but obligations through the Decree for their requires further justification. exploitation, the Client always was, and The condition is generally appropriate, still is, interested in external reviews of but the action plan fails to relate to who their impacts and evolution of the would carry out the (internal and ecosystem and species under external) reviews, what aspects of exploitation. But making external reviews management would be addressed, how needs external and independent often would reviews take place. There is reviewers. also no consultation indicated for the organisations that may be involved in Meanwhile, this point should be carrying out reviews. developed anyway through the action plan.

Public Comment Draft Report page 166

Public Comment Draft Report page 167

Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions

No information received by stakeholders.

Public Comment Draft Report page 168

Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency

Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit 1 June 2016 June 2017 The anniversary date of the certificate.

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level Level 4 On-site Off-site On-site Off-site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

Public Comment Draft Report page 169